See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327954392

The Effects of Self-Efficacy Belief, Motivation, and Learning Strategies on

Students’ Academic Performance in English in Higher Education

Article in Asian EFL Journal · September 2018

CITATIONS READS

27 2,806

4 authors, including:

Sukardi Weda Iskandar Samad

Universitas Negeri Makassar Syiah Kuala University
152 PUBLICATIONS 635 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 365 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Andi Anto Patak

Universitas Negeri Makassar
76 PUBLICATIONS 576 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andi Anto Patak on 29 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly

September 2018

Volume 20 Issue 9.2

Senior Editors:
Paul Robertson and John Adamson

1
Published by the English Language Education Publishing

Asian EFL Journal

A Division of TESOL Asia Group
Part of SITE Ltd Australia

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com

©Asian EFL Journal 2018

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of the Asian EFL Journal Press.

No unauthorized photocopying

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the Asian EFL Journal.
editor@asian-efl-journal.com

Publisher: Dr. Paul Robertson

Chief Editor: Dr. John Adamson

ISSN1738-1460

2
 Table of Contents

Foreword by Ramon Medriano, Jr……………………………………………………........04-05

1. Ángel Garralda Ortega……………………………………………….……...........…….06-34

- A Case for Blended EAP in Hong Kong Higher Education

2. Grace H. Y. Wong...…….…………………………………….……...……………….…..35-46
- Teaching Persuasive Writing through Persuasion

3. Angela Meyer Sterzik..……………………………………………………………..………..47-69

- How do we teach them all? A Needs Analysis for a Pre-Sessional EGAP Curricular Review

4. Fatemeh Karimi, Azizeh Chalak, Reza Biria...………………………..………………..70-87

- The Impact of Pre-listening Activities on Iranian EFL Learners’ Listening Comprehension
Performance

5. Wachirapong Yaemtui....………………………………………………..………………88-116
- The Effects of ASEAN English Accents on Listening Comprehension and Attitudes of Thai
Students: The Phenomenon of English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN

6. Le Pham Hoai Huong……..………………………………………………….………..117-139

- An Academic Word List for English Language Teaching

7. Sukardi Weda, Iskandar Abdul Samad………………………………………………140-168

Andi Anto Patak, Siti Sarah Fitriani
- The Effects of Self-Efficacy Belief, Motivation, and Learning Strategies on Students’ Academic
Performance in English in Higher Education

8. Joseph W. C. Lau …..……..………………………………………………….………..169-182

- Ideal university culture of ESP undergraduate students in Hong Kong

3
September 2018 Foreword
by Ramon Medriano, Jr.

This is the second volume of the AEFL Journal's September 2018 issue and it contains eight articles.
The first article, A Case for Blended EAP in Hong Kong Higher Education, Angel Ortega
investigated the need for a better platform in providing a pedagogically-rich EAP lessons. Hong
Kong, a competitive country in terms of its students' language skills may need to invest in e-
learning technologies and should start doing blended learning as part of its digital learning
revolution. Ortega further reiterated that this learning platform can ease the problem on fragmented
literacies as manifested by tertiary students in Hong Kong.
Grace Wong in her article, Teaching Persuasive Writing through Persuasion studied how students
from HKUST IELM struggled in writing their White Paper, a marketing tool that provides
persuasive and factual knowledge that a particular product or offering is better than the others. She
mentioned about the confusion on the terms "to inform" and "to persuade" and because of this
challenge, Wong adopted a strategy of teaching persuasion through persuasion.
The article, How do we teach them all? A Needs Analysis for a Pre-Sessional EGAP Curricular
Review, Angela Meyer Sterzik mentioned that teaching English in most post-secondary institutions
is now fast becoming an "enterprise" rather that it being "academic". Many language programs
cater to students' English proficiency training, yet they struggle in determining the level of
achievement of students. The study investigated the use of needs analysis to determine the content
of any English for General Academic Purposes program.
Listening is a skill that one should master in order to communicate effectively. Karimi et. al. in
their study, The Impact of Pre-listening Activities on Iranian EFL Learners' Listening
Comprehension Performance investigated the need for vocabulary and content support as pre-
listening activities to unlock difficulties that students may meet during the main listening tasks. It
was further noted that there was a significant improvement in students' listening comprehension
because of this intervention.

4
Wachirapong Yaemtui in his study, The Effects of ASEAN English Accents on Listening
Comprehension and Attitudes of Thai Students: The Phenomenon of English as a Lingua Franca
in ASEAN found out that ASEAN English speakers' accent affects Thai students' intelligibility
while Munro et.al. in their study, Foreign Accent, Comprehensibility, and Intelligibility in the
Speech of Second Language Learners, says otherwise and indicated that 'there had been very little
empirical investigation of how the presence of a nonnative accent affects intelligibility, and the
notions of “heavy accent” and “low intelligibility” had often been confounded' thus indicating
much more academic research is needed inside of ASEAN to further the arguments.
In the article, An Academic Word List for English Language Teaching, Le Pham Hoai Huong noted
that importance of creating and having a specific list of academic words in the context of ELT. The
list was then suggested to enhance the academic vocabulary skills of students as this can help them
become better in understanding academic reading and writing texts.
Weda et. al. in their article, The Effects of Self-Efficacy Belief, Motivation, and Learning Strategies
on Students’ Academic Performance in English in Higher Education, examined the relationship of
self-efficacy belief, motivation and learning strategies in students' academic performance in
English. They further suggested that these should be presented in a language learning program for
language acquisition success.
The perceptions of a student regarding learning motivation should be taken into account when
talking about social identity. In the study, Ideal university culture of ESP undergraduate students
in Hong Kong, Joseph W. C. Lau claimed that students' perception of an ideal university culture
affected their motivation as implied by their sense of belonging.

5
 A Case for Blended EAP in Hong Kong Higher Education

Ángel Garralda Ortega

Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong,

Bioprofile:
Ángel Garralda Ortega is an Assistant Professor at the Technological and Higher Education
institute of Hong Kong. He coordinates EAP courses and teaches languages, linguistics and
Hispanic culture. He has a PhD. from the University of Birmingham and is an award-winning
educator with e-learning experience. He can be reached at agarralda66@vtc.edu.hk

Abstract
This paper provides a rationale for a more effective use of digital technologies in blended
university EAP programs. I first introduce the concept of “fragmented academic literacies” which
are rooted in Hong Kong’s highly competitive, unequal and rigid primary and secondary education
and the medium of instruction paradox. Using Giddens’s social structuration theory refined by
Sewel (Giddens 1984, Sewel 2005), I analyze how these fragmented literacies are reproduced and
perpetuated among Hong Kong university students by their past school experiences as well as by
university curricula, administrative and classroom-based teaching and learning practices. Based
on those insights, I outline how the use of digital technologies at various stages of the learning
process could become a catalyst for pedagogical disruption and innovation by individualizing
learning, enhancing cooperation among student-peers and leading to a more meaningful and
productive use of face-to-face contact time between students and teachers. This will be illustrated
with examples of digital learning materials and blended learning activities from EAP and CLIL
contexts.

Affiliation Address: Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong,

133 Shing Tai Road, Chai Wan, Hong Kong

6
Keywords: (academic literacies, social constructionism, curriculum design, blended learning,
EAP, CLIL)

Introduction
Hong Kong’s aim of becoming a trilingual and biliterate society in the context of its rapid
transformation into a knowledge-based globalized economy continues to be plagued with
challenges, as already anticipated by Adamson and Lai (1997) in their discussion of the role of
language in the education curriculum as Hong Kong was re-unified with China. Such challenges
are largely derived from the tension between overly ambitious language planning policies driven
by macro politico-economic goals and the micro pedagogical reality of the classrooms (Hamid et
al 2014). It is in this microcosm of a classroom in the average band two or band three Hong Kong
secondary school where many of the contradictions of an affluent and yet largely unequal society
and an education policy often erratic, highly competitive and increasingly elitist emerge
(Goodstadt 2014; Poon & Lau 2016).
As Hong Kong students begin their university study, they face the typical challenges associated
with the transition from secondary schooling (i.e. cognitive development, learning behavior, a
markedly different teaching, learning and assessment culture etc.). An additional key challenge
inherited from their prior education is a low English proficiency which considerably hinders their
potential to fully benefit from the English-medium education widespread among Hong Kong
tertiary institutions (Evans & Morrison 2011). This is particularly noticeable with students coming
from Chinese-medium secondary schools, majoritarian in Hong Kong nowadays (Lin & Morrison
2010; Poon 2010).
While trying to provide sufficient and adequate academic support for those in need, Hong Kong
education institutions are also urged to recruit enough students in response to a shrinking student
population and increasing competition from overseas and self-funded degree programs. More often
than not, an already packed curriculum means that students are too busy with their content subjects
to allow more time for learning English while English courses need to be pitched at levels which
can be too challenging for many learners. Thus, the learning of both language and content remains
impaired as frustrated students often struggle to communicate their thoughts cogently in English.
Laudable initiatives such as Outcome-Based Teaching and Learning which promote learner
centeredness, problem solving and learning by doing are also often hindered by the students’
limited communication skills. Educators may need to resort to teacher-centered spoon-feeding and

7
lower-order thinking activities instead of promoting student-led discussion and analysis, as many
students tend to employ rote learning when struggling to fully comprehend the readings and
lectures in their content subjects. In the end, this not only affects student motivation and self-
concept (Poon 2014) but also leads to a learning culture which nurtures mediocrity, where students
hide behind their peers and professors content themselves with searching for keywords instead of
cogent arguments in student essays.

Fragmented literacies
The situation described above arguably results in fragmented literacies characterized by:
“‘incomplete’- ‘truncated’- language repertoires, most of which consist of spoken, vernacular and
non-native varieties of different languages, with an overlay of differentially developed literacy
skills in one or some languages […]” (Blommaert 2010, p. 9). Two key concepts used by
Blommaert in explaining fragmented literacies are “multi-scalarity” and “indexicality”. He uses
multi-scalarity to theorize how language use is being affected by the high mobility brought by
globalization. Accordingly, every text can be simultaneously placed across a range of
sociolinguistic scales, from the local to the global, and resources such as power condition access
to multiple scales. Every text can be indexed differently depending on the scales in which it
operates. As a result of this multi-scalarity and indexicality, language repertoires can be considered
“good”, “acceptable”, “deviant”, “appropriate” etc. not intrinsically, but rather depending on the
context of situation (and of culture) in which they appear. In Blommaert’s view, these peripheral
forms of normativity actually “respond to local issues of function and need; they are, in other
words, ecologically embedded in the community in which they operate” (ibid, p. 86).
For instance, a final year project report written by an undergraduate student with an intermediate
level of English could be considered “acceptable” by a content subject professor on account of its
content. Likewise, it could be seen as “good” by fellow students with similar cognitive and
linguistic proficiency but be treated as “deviant” by ESP teachers, who may rather place the
emphasis on occasional coherence lapses, frequent lexico-grammatical errors, and a lack of
awareness of the generic conventions to be followed. Last but not least, librarians and senior
administrators may object to the dissemination of such text online arguing that this could
negatively affect the reputation of the institution.

8
An analytical toolkit for fragmented literacies
In trying to explain and confront the phenomenon of fragmented literacies in education, it is
advisable to adopt a problem-oriented approach based on “conceptual pragmatism” by giving
enough consideration to both theory and practicality (Mouzelis 1995). Only if we understand the
nature and dynamics of the social processes operating in educational institutions, we stand a chance
of successfully promoting change. An analytical toolkit capable of doing so arguably requires
parameter-rich theories such as ecolinguistics (Mülhäusler 2003; Haugen 1972), capable of
capturing the complexity of the social context in which fragmented literacies originate and
reproduce. Implicit in an ecological view of language and society is a sociolinguistics of parole
where language is no longer conceptualized in the Saussurean fashion, as an idealized semiotic
system, an object of study in itself, nor can texts be considered in isolation, as self-contained end
products. Instead, language in use is understood as a sociolinguistic reality systemically realized
as social practice, in the form of semiosis situated in context (Garner 2004).
Such overarching approach comes with shortcomings, as we inevitably face the choice of either
“solve a small, artificially self-contained puzzle without being able to make sense of the parts, or
to attempt to make sense of the parts of a much larger puzzle without any hope of understanding
the whole” (Mülhäusler 2003, p. 13). The latter, however, is preferable for any attempt of
pedagogical disruption and innovation to succeed against well-established inhibiting practices.
In view of this, one can start analyzing the social context in which fragmented literacies thrive by
examining the socially constructed discursive practices that make up the “ecology” of an education
institution, in order to uncover the roots of these fragmented literacies before proposing some form
of pedagogical strategy capable of instilling change in the form of disruptive pedagogies.
Giddens’s social structuration theory (Giddens 1984) can provide a useful analytical toolkit, as it
can help us chart social action and analyze social change by overcoming the dualism between the
micro and the macro and re-establishing the balance between individual agency at the micro level
and social structure and the macro level (Giddens, 1979). Such balance is redressed by
emphasizing that human agency and social structure are not to be understood as a dualism but as
a duality, logically implicated in each other in terms of a dialectical relationship. Consequently,
the focus in Giddens’s theory is “neither the experience of the individual actor nor the existence
of any form of societal totality, but empirically-observable social practices ordered across space
and time. This approach reconstitutes macro-sociology upon radical empirical micro-foundations”

9
(Garralda Ortega 2014, p.68). Sewel (2005) further develops Giddens’s social structuration model
making it less abstract and providing additional room for human agency in which knowledgeable
and enabled agents “are capable of putting their structurally formed capacities to work in creative
and innovative ways”, so that “if enough people or even a few people who are powerful enough
act in innovative ways, their action may have the consequence of transforming the very structures
that gave them capacity to act (Ibid, p. 146).
Figure 1 illustrates how the ecology of a typical tertiary education institution in Hong Kong may
be discursively constructed through social action, where social action is defined as semiotically-
mediated practices situated across time and space operating simultaneously at various scales (from
the micro to the macro). Language is assumed to be the prime semiotic tool in such practices but
it is usually complemented by other forms of semiosis such as pictures, movies, body language,
etc.
The information presented in figure 1 is complemented with that in table 1, where some of the key
discursive domains relevant to the phenomenon of fragmented literacies in Hong Kong’s
educational institutions are listed and examples of social practices, in the form of activities and/or
events, are provided. The list, provided for illustration purposes, is by no means exhaustive.
At the micro scalar level, one finds multiple actions grouped alongside various discursive
institutional domains (i.e. learners, academic units, Registry, President’s office, etc.). Such micro-
actions are empirically analyzable: they have traceable beginnings and ends; they are easily
quantifiable and social agency is evident at this level of scalarity. Micro-actions tend to be
continuously reproduced as processes at the meso-scalar level. Processes are comparatively less
amenable to empirical analysis than micro-actions, as agency may be diluted and quantification
can be problematic. For instance, it is relatively easy to annotate the amount of micro-actions such
as teacher-initiated versus student-initiated turns during a tutorial and the agents involved in those
turns than to determine the extent an institution or an academic program encourages student-
centeredness (an example of process). This is because in the case of processes, multiple sets of
micro-actions operating at various discursive domains (i.e. turn-taking during tutorials but also
teacher-student or lecture vs. tutorial ratios) crisscross, thus making bottom-up inductive analysis
more difficult to carry out.

10
Macro

STRUCTURES

human

mental/cultural
schemas Resources

non-human

Meso PROCESSES

micro-actions micro-actions
micro-actions (President’s (Finance
(Registry) Office) Office)

micro-actions micro-actions
micro-actions (Student
(Academic (PR Office )
units) counselling/careers)
)

micro-actions micro-actions
micro-actions (Library/Learning (Facilities
(Learners) resources) management)

Micro

11
 Figure 1. The ecology of a tertiary education institution.

Schema “habitus”, “ways of doing things”.

(Mental/cultural)
Structures

Human teachers, students, teacher/student ratio, etc.

Resources Non-human power, time, space, technology, timetable, campus

facilities, etc.

Processes

Domain Agents Goals (G) and Activities (A)

President’s Office President, Vice- G: institutional and academic development, policy-

president, deans. making, internationalization, fund-raising, etc.

E: meetings, speeches, ceremonies, written

communication, etc.

Finance Office Finance Office staff G: Resource allocation, procurement, budgeting, etc.

Registry Registry, students G: Admission, student records, timetabling, etc.

Library & learning Library staff, G: Library purchases and records, provision of e-learning,
Micro-Actions

Resources technicians etc. provision of IT resources, etc.

Facilities Management FM staff G: Campus planning, maintenance and organization.

Student Counselling & counsellors, career G: Counselling, special education needs, career advice,
Career Office officers. extra-curricular and internationalization activities, etc.

PR Office PR staff G: Promotion (planning and implementation).

Academic Units Academic staff G: Educate

A: Curriculum planning, syllabus design, teaching and

learning activities, etc.

Learners learners G: Obtain a degree, become an educated professional.

12
 A: lectures, tutorials, seminars, language lab sessions,
consultation, presentations, exams, tests, internships, etc.

Table 1. The discursive construction of fragmented literacies in educational institutions

At the macro-scalar level, one finds structures which are highly abstract, durable and agentless.
Such structures are classified here into two types: mental schema and resources. The later can be
further divided into human and non-human. Structures are said to simultaneously constrain and
enable social action in one way or the other. Three key structures in social structuration processes
are power, time and space because of the deep impact and lasting effect they exert on social action.
Power, present at all scalar levels at the hands of individuals or institutions, usually determines
which actions may be reproduced more than others, thus giving rise to processes. Also, the actions
of powerful agents usually have more lasting effect than those of less powerful ones. Effective use
of resources like time and space, in conjunction with other resources such as technology, enable
social action to operate simultaneously across various scales: from the local (i.e. face-to-face
interaction in a traditional classroom setting) to the global (i.e. a lesson in a YouTube channel,
where social action is no longer constrained by the “here and now”). This transformation of
TimeSpace from “here-and now”, the only available option in primitive societies, to multiple
TimeSpace scales, has been increasing exponentially since modern times (Karsten 2013), a
phenomenon Giddens (1990) calls “time-space distanciation” and others have called “time-space
compression” (Harvey, 1989).

Borrowing Bourdieu’s concept of habitus (Bourdieu 1997), Sewel (2005) conceives structures in
less abstract and rigid fashion than Giddens. For instance, Sewel substitutes Giddens’s rules, which
can be often interpreted as hard immutable reality, with mental/cultural schema, which result from
generalizations of the social practices shaping social systems such as the ecology of tertiary
education institutions. Sewel also distinguishes between “human” and “non-human” resources and
conceives the relationship between schemas and resources as a dualism, not a duality (i.e. schemas
can be understood as the effects of resources and the other way around). More importantly, Sewel
further paves the way for social change to be practicable despite of structures, which by definition
are prone to stasis, by arguing that structures can be multiple and intersecting (i.e. not necessarily
aligned but also contradicting each other at times), schemas are transposable (i.e. not automatically
transferred from one context of situation to another) and resources may accumulate unpredictably,
13
thus leading to contradictions in how the ecology of an education institution can be socially
constructed through discourse.

The social discursive construction of fragmented literacies in Hong Kong

The analytical model discussed above will be applied next to analyze how fragmented literacies
are reproduced and perpetuated in Hong Kong’s educational contexts, supported by empirical data
from various sources.

Perhaps the most significant structural factor behind fragmented literacies in Hong Kong tertiary
institutions has to do with the fact that not enough students graduate from secondary school having
reached a proficiency threshold to enable them to study adequately through the medium of English
at university. This is so because language plays a key role in constructing knowledge and the world
around us (Halliday 1978) and thus, students’ ability to conceptualize complex problems and
produce arguments in content subjects cannot be dissociated from their ability to express their
ideas cogently in English. Well-established bilingualism theories explain that in addition to
adequate exposure and motivation, an upper threshold level of linguistic competence is needed for
students to benefit from L2 education, what Cummins (1976, 1981, 1983, 1985) calls “Cognitive
Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)”, to be able to employ language in highly abstract and
decontextualized academic settings. Unlike Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), it
has been argued that CALP does not necessarily develop naturally, as a result of exposure to
language in everyday contexts (Ellis 1994). Additional evidence in support of this hypothesis
comes from the fact that L1 speakers do not necessarily acquire CALP unless they are frequently
exposed to what Berstein (1971) called “elaborated code” (see also Hasan 1989).

As the Final Report of the Language Education Review in 2003 already echoed, if Hong Kong
aligned the local minimum requirement for university admission with international standards, not
enough students might qualify for the publicly funded places at Hong Kong universities each year
(SCOLAR 2003). This claim can be further substantiated by examining the Diploma of Secondary
Education (DSE) English and Chinese language results in 2017 (see figure 2).

14
Figure 2. DSE English and Chinese language results in 2017.1

Out of 55,440 for Chinese and 56,291 candidates for English, only 54,4% in Chinese and 51.2%
in English reached the grade of 3 and above required for university admission in 2017 and less
than 10% of the candidates obtained a grade of 5 and above. Figures 3 and 4 below detail the grade
level descriptors for English (levels 5 to 2).

1
Source: http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/Media/PR/20170711_Results_HKDSE_FULL_ENG.pdf (accessed on
23-6-2108)

15
Figure 3. Grade descriptors for levels 5 and 4 (English DSE).

Figure 4. Grade descriptors for levels 3 and 2 (English DSE).2

2
Source: http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/en/hkdse/hkdse_subj.html?A1&1&2_4 (accessed on 23-6-2018)

16
It seems sound to assume that the leap involved in successfully transitioning from secondary to
English-medium tertiary education requires a CALP level which should enable students to engage
receptively and productively with highly complex abstract argumentative texts originally intended
for an audience other than language learners. Typically, such texts not only belong to academic
genres previously unfamiliar to students but also require extensive vocabularies, both general and
discipline-specific, as well as a high command of the grammar needed for “abstract thought” (i.e.
complex sentence structures, nominalization, complex modality etc.). Similarly, students are
expected to adequately extract information during lectures as well as use high-level reading skills
to summarize and synthesize the information needed for writing texts as complex as literature
reviews and research proposals.

In view of this, one can assume that students who obtained an English DSE grade of 5 or above
have reached the CALP threshold to cope with English-medium instruction at university.
However, students with a grade of 4 or below (90.5% of the graduates in 2017) may probably
struggle, as they may not be able to understand fast-paced and/or accented spoken discourse during
lectures, nor handle academic texts requiring advanced reading skills such as complex inferencing
and be expected to express themselves cogently when using unfamiliar academic genres. Those
students with a grade of 3 (24.8% of the DSE graduates), if admitted, probably enter university
quite unprepared for the challenges of English-medium study. This problem is aggravated by Hong
Kong’s low birth rates and slightly lower DSE grades in 2017 (Chiu 2017) as well as by increasing
competition from overseas universities and local self-funded providers, which put additional
pressure on institutions to accept students with lower CALP.

How do local tertiary institutions deal with this chronic lack of study-ready learner supply?
Sewel’s axiom of multiplicity of structures discussed before (Sewel 2005) explains how this
paradox may be confronted with a “business-as-usual agenda” which may at times contradict “the
educational agenda” equally present at universities and thus indirectly nurture fragmented
literacies. As a senior academic once put it “if students are not quite ready for university study on
account of their low CALP, we still need to accept them and move on, as our existence as an
academic department, and people’s jobs, would otherwise be at stake”.

Examples of this “business agenda” operating alongside universities’ educational mission abound
in the form of widespread practices involving what can be described as an “assembly-line approach

17
to education” in which administrative efficiency is placed before pedagogy. Take for instance
timetabling, a key regulatory framework in conjunction with curriculum design. Students,
irrespective of their CALP, are equally required to take an average of 9 and 12 credits in various
English language courses (general or discipline-specific courses, EAP and sometimes ESP
courses) which usually represent around 5 to 7% of the total credit units in a typical 4-year
program. Most courses at universities last one semester and are usually taught in either a three-
hour tutorial slot or by combining lectures and tutorials. One could argue that it may not be
pedagogically sound to engage students continuously during three hours; that teacher-student
ratios should be considered when dealing with weaker students; that weaker students should either
take extra courses or be required to participate in reinforcement activities. Also, as courses may
present vastly different levels of difficulty, it may be advisable for some courses to last longer than
a semester. However, perhaps as an unintended consequence or as the result of inertia,
administrative efficiency and financial constraints often prevail to the detriment of pedagogy.

Naturally, as academic expectations are conveniently adjusted and administrative efficiency is

prioritized over pedagogy, students also accommodate their attitudes and learning practices to the
normativity system to which they are being exposed. Or rather, they may not feel the urge to alter
some of the schemas associated with Hong Kong’s traditional learning and teaching culture
familiar to them. For instance, many students have been conditioned since childhood to learning
in a teacher-centered and exam-oriented culture (Braine 2003; Chu 2018). Such culture arguably
promotes a surface approach to learning often associated with extrinsic motivation, where the
focus is on passing the assessment in order to meet the program’s requirement. Such approach
often results in quick fixes in the form of spoon-feeding and rote-learning rather than in engaging
students actively and critically with content (Biggs and Tang 2007; Jackson 2004). As a result of
these deeply-rooted sociocultural practices, students often come to universities with deeply-
ingrained mental schemas which tend to inhibit deep learning (Kember et al 2013).

The following data from a survey conducted at the beginning of academic year 2017-18 among
1,097 students (431 from year 1 and 666 from year 2 and above) provide supporting evidence of
these widespread practices associated with surface approaches to learning, responsible for
fragmented literacies (see Appendix 1). As the study was conducted shortly after many of the
students surveyed commenced their tertiary education, the practices identified could be interpreted

18
as the product of cultural schema inherited from prior education. The overall picture that emerges
from the data indicates that students appeared not only quite unprepared for university study but
also that they may not have been aware of or concerned about their predicament at the time of the
survey. In some cases, however, differences in log-likelihood scores between year 1 and older
students may point towards newly emerging accommodation strategies needed for survival in
tertiary education as suggested by Evans and Morrison (2011).

On the one hand, students may not generally plan and prepare for their coursework as one may
expect at university. According to their responses in the survey, they tend to start working on their
assignments quite late, between one and four days before the deadline, with less than 20% of
students choosing to start one week before the deadline. Year 1 students start significantly later,
as revealed by a log-likelihood score of +11.25. This pattern is repeated when students are asked
how much time they invest in analyzing the assignment question(s) and instructions given to them.
The majority claim to spend a few minutes and year 1 students spend significantly less time (log-
likelihood: +18.91, -14.74, -16.43). Also, students usually over-rely on unconventional
information sources for their work and prefer peers over tutors. Google is the source chosen in
39.91% of responses, followed by Wikipedia (17.99%), although less than 20% of students admit
to understanding the difference between “Google” and “Google Scholar” “quite well” or “very
well”. Interestingly, 4.10% of overall students claim to write their assignments without collecting
ideas beforehand. Again, a log-likelihood score of +27.69 points at significant differences between
year 1 students and the rest. Classmates constitute the main source of support for assignments
(34.91%) followed by tutors (28.76%) and friends (24.75%). On the other hand, the majority of
students declare to have some understanding of how information is organized in journal articles:
51.47 “somewhat well”, 18.47% “quite well” and 1.83 “very well”. A log-likelihood score of
+16.46 evidences that a significantly higher percentage of year 1 students claim not to understand
this, however. Similarly, a majority of students claim to understand how to organize information
in their own writing: 54.03% “somewhat well”, 23.66% “quite well” and 1.92 “very well”.

It appears that students may be over-optimistic about their understanding of how information is
organized in academic genres, especially if we consider that 54.03% of overall students (49.88%
of year 1 students a few weeks after the commencement of their study) and 23.66% of overall
students claim to know about information organization in journal articles “somewhat well” and

19
“quite well” respectively. Arguably this constitutes evidence of accommodation strategies leading
to fragmented literacies, as students may not perceive the urge to adapt to the new academic
environment and choose to continue pursuing surface learning. This impression is not only
corroborated by the language teachers of those students but also, it can be supported by two more
pieces of evidence regarding student attitudes towards process-writing: On the one hand, 42.11%
students would “seldom” and 4.21% “never” produce an outline/mind-map before writing and
44.64%% would “seldom” and 6.67 “never” produce at least one draft. On the other hand, 45.28%
and 30.83% of students would “seldom” or “never” bring their English language assignments for
consultation with English tutors (i.e. #Writeadvice). The percentage of students who would
“seldom” or “never” bring content assignments to #Writeadvice consultation is 42.76% and
38.46% respectively.

Inducing change through disruptive pedagogies

Implicit in the theoretical considerations and in the analytical toolkit explained before is the notion
that for educational change to endure, it needs to be induced by taking into consideration the social
ecology of the institution, making the best use of the affordances and constraints involved in its
discursive practices. Thus, disruptive pedagogies targeting fragmented literacies need to be
embedded in Outcome-Based Learning, widespread across Hong Kong’s institutions, seeking to
foster its positive impact on student learning. One area of concern here is the alignment of teaching
and learning activities (TLAs) with course intended learning outcomes (CILOs) and assessment
tasks (ATs) (see figure 5).

20
Figure 5. Outcome-Based Learning

While CILOs and ATs require learners to engage in higher-order thinking, the classroom often
becomes a teacher-centered trap because of the misalignment between administration and
pedagogy discussed above and learner practices associated with low CALP (Gow et al 1991) and
with the spoon-feeding expectations of students. Add to this the fact that resources like TimeSpace
often constrain instead of enabling educational practices more conducive to active learning (see
figure 6). If learning must usually take place “here-and-now” and “face-to-face” and spaces mostly
consist of rows of tables and chairs in front of a screen, like in images 1 and 2 below, one may
naturally expect learners to react passively to any teacher’s attempts to engage in discussion
conducive to analysis, evaluation and critique (Lasry et al 2014). Even if teachers try to engage
learners in student-centered discussion, classroom interaction can be often described in terms of
conflicting frames (see Goffman 1974).

21
Figure 6. TimeSpace organization and learning practices.

Another cause for concern is a curriculum where English language focus is generally limited to
roughly 7% of the credit load, which is clearly insufficient when students come with low CALP.
Pressed to help students achieve the high language standards required for proper academic study
within such short time, teachers often end up making their English courses far too demanding for
their audience. Students on their part may feel compelled to cope with learning outcomes which
may be difficult to achieve. This can have a very negative effect on learning attitudes in the end.

Additional support can be provided alongside credit-bearing blended EAP courses and through
blended content and language integrated learning (CLIL) where specific tasks, formulated as
problem-based learning, are scaffolded linguistically and cognitively to facilitate deep learning
during small group face-to-face interaction (see figure 7).

22
Figure 7: A model for blending EAP and CLIL.

Flipped classes can provide a number of advantages for effective and active learning when
compared with face-to-face learning (see figure 8).

Figure 8. Synchronous vs. asynchronous learning

Using blended learning in EAP and CLIL can address these TimeSpace constraints in the form of
flipped classes, an asynchronous learning mode where students work online at their own pace and
23
time on pre-prepared materials mainly intended for the transmission of content, such as readings
and videotaped lectures. Online input can be subsequently supplemented with small-group face-
to-face discussion where students would engage in preset tasks connected with the readings and
lectures applying and analyzing concepts, issues and theories. Traditional synchronous learning is
rooted on the assumption that all the students in class can learn at the same pace and rate. Learners
typically follow a unique pre-determined learning path of assigned readings, lectures and tutorials
where e-learning platforms such as Moodle often play an ancillary role, mostly as storage of
handouts, PowerPoints, videos, etc. In asynchronous blended learning, students can watch
videotaped lectures multiple times, thus providing opportunities for weaker students to better
comprehend their content. In addition, tools intended for language support such as video subtitles,
glossaries and questions in online readings (see figure 9), or even language companion workshops
including additional grammar and vocabulary exercises also provide multiple alternative learning
paths. These may better cater for differences in cognitive development, language proficiency,
learning styles, etc. and therefore may result in markedly different learning outcomes.

Figure 9: Pilot E-reading platform for cognitive and linguistic scaffolding.

By delivering lecture contents asynchronously, blended learning can also provide additional
opportunities for face-to-face student-led interaction where learners could engage with the course

24
materials at a deeper level, thus providing additional opportunities to enhance critical thinking (see
figure 10).

Figure 10. Dedicated YouTube channel for lecture contents

(https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgMsTT2pdERp2_siZPm3sjA)

Conclusion

Change is urgently needed in how we address the phenomenon of fragmented literacies across
Hong Kong tertiary institutions, as students often struggle to communicate in English in academic
contexts. At the root of this problem one finds a chronic undersupply of “study-ready” learners
paired with the compelling need on the part of institutions to “make do with what they have”. Also,
operational constraints embedded in the ecology of every education institution may often
undermine its pedagogical mission. It has also been suggested that pedagogical disruption in the
form of blended EAP and CLI can pave the ground for deeper learning. Such endeavor, however,
would require not only the full support of those with power, as well as adequate investment in e-
learning technologies and resources, but also the concerted effort of “those in the trenches”:

25
language and content teachers and learners alike. A paradigm shift in the way people teach and
learn at hand as a result of the digital learning revolution in which we are now immersed. But
unless concerted action is taken at all levels, such shift will not take place for now in many places.

APPENDIX 1
Survey on learning practices
1097 tertiary students were surveyed during the first three weeks of academic year 2017-18. 431
students came from year 1 (E1) and 666 from years 2 and above (E2). The figures below are
expressed in percentages. Log-likelihood scores are provided to compare the differences between
E1 and E2. A score of 6.63 and above indicates a 99% probability of those differences being
statistically significant:
95th percentile; 5% level; p < 0.05; critical value = 3.84
99th percentile; 1% level; p < 0.01; critical value = 6.63
99.9th percentile; 0.1% level; p < 0.001; critical value = 10.83
99.99th percentile; 0.01% level; p < 0.0001; critical value = 15.13

Q1: How long before the deadline do you usually start writing an assignment?

30
25
20
15
10 E1
5 E2
0
TOTAL
a. Less than b. More c. Two days d. Between e. A week f. Other:
24 hours than 24 before the 3 and 4 before the (please
before the hours deadline. days before deadline. specify).
deadline. before the the
deadline. deadline.

26
Q2: How much time do you usually spend analyzing the assignment question(s) and
instructions provided before writing your assignment?
60
50
40
30 E1
20 E2
10 TOTAL
0
a. I do not b. I spend c. I spend d. I spend e. I spend f. Other:
spend any a few at least 30 at least 1 more than (please
time. minutes. minutes. hour. one hour. specify).

Q3: What do you usually do to collect ideas for an assignment before you start writing? (You
can choose more than one option).
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

E1 E2 TOTAL

Q4: Who are you likely to ask for help on assignments? (You can choose more than one
option).
40
35 L-L
30 0.37
25 1.63
20
0.04
15
1.15
10
5 2.52
0 3.47
a. b. My class c. My d. Friends. e. Family. f. Other.
#Writeadvice. tutor. classmates.

E1 E2 TOTAL

27
Q5: I understand the difference between “Google” and “Google Scholar”.
45
40
35
30
25 E1
20
E2
15
TOTAL
10
5
0
Very well Quite well Somewhat Not well Not at all
well

Q6: I understand how information is organized in research articles published in academic

journals.

60
50
40
E1
30
20 E2

10 TOTAL

0
Very well Quite well Somewhat Not well Not at all
well

28
Q7: I understand how information should be organized in the academic essays I need to
write.

60

50

40
E1
30
E2
20
TOTAL
10

0
Very well Quite well Somewhat Not well Not at all
well

Q8: I produce an outline in point form or a mind map with key ideas and arguments before I
write the assignment in full text form.
50
45
40
35
30 E1
25
E2
20
15 TOTAL L-L
10 3.8
5
0.25
0
Always Usually Seldom Never
1.22
0.83

29
Q9: I produce at least 1 draft of my assignments before I submit my final version.

50
45
40
35
30 E1
25
E2
20
TOTAL L-L
15
10 0.43
5 0.38
0 0
Always Usually Seldom Never 0.72

Q10: I bring my assignments from English language courses to #Writeadvice for consultation
before I submit them to my professors.

60

50

40
E1
30
E2
20 TOTAL
10

0
Always Usually Seldom Never

30
Q11: I bring my assignments from modules other than English to #Writeadvice for
consultation before I submit them to my professors.

50
45
40
35
30 E1
25
E2
20
15 TOTAL
10
5
0
Always Usually Seldom Never

31
References:
Adamson, B. and Lai, A.W. (1997). Language and the Curriculum in Hong Kong: dilemmas of
triglossia. Comparative Education, 33(2), 33-246.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of
language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Biggs, J.B. and Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university, 3rd ed. Berkshire:
Open University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braine, G. (2003). From a teacher-centered to a student-centered approach. A study of peer-
feedback in Hong Kong writing classes. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 13:2,
269-288.
Chiu, P. (2017, June 12). DSE scores show fewer Hong Kong students make grade for local
universities. SCMP. from: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-
community/article/2102243/fewer-hong-kong-students-make-grade-local
Chu, K. (2018). Overall study hours and student well-being in Hong Kong. Research Office,
Legislative Council Secretariat. from: https://www.legco.gov.hk/research-
publications/english/1718in05-overall-study-hours-and-student-well-being-in-hong-kong-
20180130-e.pdf
Cummins, J. (1976). “The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: a synthesis of research
findings and explanatory hypothesis. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 1-43.
Cummins, J. (1981). “The role of primary language development in promoting educational success
for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.)
Schooling and language minority students. A theoretical framework (pp. 3-50). Los
Angeles: California State department of Education.
Cummins, J. (1983). “Language proficiency and academic achievement”. In J. Oller (Ed.) Issues
in language testing research. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Cummins, J. (1985). “The construct of language proficiency in bilingual education”. In J.E. Alatis
& J.J. Staczek (Eds.), Perspectives on bilingualism and bilingual education (pp. 209-231)
Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garralda Ortega, A. (2014). The social construction of the Spanish nation: a discourse-based

32
 approach (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from eTheses repository University of
Birmingham. from http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/4989/
Gow, L., Kember, D. & Chow, R. (1991). The effects of English language ability on approaches to
learning. RELC JOURNAL22(1), 49-68.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford CA.: Stanford University Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. New York: Harper & Row.
Evans, S. & Morrison, B. (2011). Meeting the challenges of English-medium higher education: the
first year experience in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes 30, 198-208.
Garner, M. (2004). Language: an ecological view. Bern: Peter Lang.
Goodstadt, L. (2013). Poverty in the midst of affluence. How Hong Kong mismanaged its
prosperity. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Hasan, R. (1989). Semantic variation and sociolinguistics. Australian Journal of Sociolinguistics
9(2), 221-276.
Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Halliday M.A.K. (1978). Language as social Semiotic: the social interpretation of language and
meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Hamid, M.O, Nguyen, H.T.M and Baldauf Jr. R.B. (2014). Medium of instruction in Asia: context,
processes and outcomes. In M.O. Hamid et al (Eds.) Language planning for medium of
instruction in Asia (pp 1-15). Oxford: Routledge.
Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jackson, J. (2004). An inter-university, cross-disciplinary analysis of business education:
perceptions of business faculty in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes 24(3), 198-
208.
Karsten, L. (2013). Globalization and time. Oxford: Routledge.
Kember, D., Hong, C. & Ho, A. (2013). From model answers to multiple perspectives: adapting
study approaches to suit university study. Active Learning in Higher Education 14 (1), 23-
35.
Lasry, N., Charles, E. & Whittaker, C. (2014). When teacher-centered instructors are assigned to

33
 student-centered classrooms. Physics Education Research 10(1), 010116-1-010116-9.
Lin, L.H.F & Morrison, B. (2010). The impact of medium of instruction in Hong Kong secondary
schools on tertiary students’ vocabulary. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9, 255-
266.
Mouzelis, N. (1995). Sociological theory: what went wrong? Diagnoses and remedies. London:
Routledge.
Mülhäusler, P. (2003). Language of environment: environment of language: a course in
ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge.
Poon, A.Y.K (2010). Language use and language policy and planning in Hong Kong. Current
issues in language planning 11, 1-66.
Poon, A. Y. K (2014). Will the new fine-tuning medium-of-instruction policy alleviate the threats
of dominance of English-medium instruction in Hong Kong? In M.O. Hamid et al (Eds.)
Language planning for medium of instruction in Asia (pp.34-51). Oxford: Routledge.
Poon, A. Y.K & Lau C.M.Y (2016). Fine-tuning medium- of -instruction policy in Hong Kong:
acquisition of language and content-based subject knowledge. Journal of Pan-pacific
Association of Applied Linguistics 20(1), 135-155.
Sewell, W.H. (2005). A theory of structure. Duality, agency and transformation. In Spiegel, G. M.
(Ed.) Practicing history (pp. 146-165) New York: Routledge.
Standing Committee on Language Education and Research (SCOLAR) (2003). Action plan to
raise language standards in Hong Kong: final report of language education review. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong Government Documents. from: http://www.language-
education.com/eng/doc/Download_ActionPlan-Final_Report(E).pdf

34
 Teaching Persuasive Writing through Persuasion

Grace H. Y. Wong
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Bioprofile:
Dr. Grace H.Y. Wong is Lecturer at Center for Language Education, HKUST (lcgrace@ust.hk),
where she teaches ‘Discourse Analysis’ to M.A. students, and EAP / ESP courses to undergraduates
/ postgraduates. Her research interests include teaching and assessing academic writing. She has a
Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from Macquarie University, Australia.

Abstract
This paper focuses on the teaching of persuasive writing to HKUST IELM (Industrial Engineering
and Logistic Management) final-year students through an unusual genre, the White Paper. A White
Paper is a tool technology companies recently use to showcase, and hence generate business for,
new products/services. In other words, companies write White Papers to persuade rather than
purely to inform, but instead of using emotional language associated with advertisements,
persuasion is achieved through facts, knowledge and analysis. This genre is difficult to teach, as it
is uncommon and subtle. At the beginning, we tried to show students’ authentic examples, as well
as formatting features, of White Papers. However, it was found that the most challenging part was
helping students understand what an industry trend is, and how to write persuasively about the
trend to different audiences, both technical and lay, in the same White Paper. So in the second year
of teaching, more scaffolding on these was made. Yet it was ultimately discovered that the most
important thing to teach was the benefits of writing a White Paper. It was only by persuading
students the impact of White Papers in promoting business, and the importance to their immediate
and future career, of learning how to distinguish between, as well as to merge, the techniques for
writing to inform and to persuade, can students produce the genre we aimed at teaching them.
Therefore we do not simply ‘teach’ persuasion in ESP writing, we have to ‘persuade’ students the
importance of learning this in the first place.

35
The Paper
EAP and ESP
In recent years in Hong Kong, the raising of university students’ English proficiency has been
the goal of all the local tertiary institutes, so as to help students cope with their higher studies on
the one hand, and meet with the challenges working in this international city and beyond after
graduation on the other. EAP is thus taught to freshmen, and ESP to graduating students. While
the curricular of EAP do not vary too much among universities, there are different choices
regarding ESP. Some universities choose to teach job-seeking skills such as resume / application
letter writing and interview techniques (i.e. skills students need before they receive a job offer),
while some others opt for teaching professional communication skills in the workplace (i.e. skills
students need after they receive a job offer). In the latter choice, there are again two orientations:
the first towards teaching tools required in day-to-day, generic workplace communication (such as
emails and minutes), and the second towards equipping graduates with skills to cope with the needs
arising from their particular career (such as writing feasibility reports for launching business
projects and user guides for promoting IT products). The last approach is the choice of the Center
for Language Education (CLE), the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST),
for teaching ESP to senior engineering students, which is presented in this paper.

ESP in HKUST
Before UST students proceed to the ESP course in question, they would have already taken a
common EAP course, entitled ‘English for University Studies’, in Year 1, plus a ESP course,
entitled ‘Technical Communication I’, in Year 2, irrespective of their departments. When they
reach Year 3 or 4, they take a department-specific ESP course, entitled ‘Technical Communication
II’ for a thirteen-week semester. Half of the semester is devoted to discipline-specific academic
and literacy skills(to prepare them to write their Final-year Project), while the other half on
discipline-specific professional skills, as requested by our clientele, the different engineering
departments.

ESP and IELM

The particular course focused in this paper is the ‘Technical Communication II for Industrial
Engineering and Logistic Management’ (IELM). As its name suggests, there are two streams in

36
this branch of study: Industrial Engineering and Logistic Management. Graduates take up a great
variety of careers upon graduation, in workplaces such as engineering management and
consultancies, banks, insurance companies, logistics industry and product design firms. The
students thus position their branch of studies somewhere in-between the engineering and business
worlds.

The White Paper

The genre selected for teaching the discipline-specific professional skills in IELM is most
unconventional: the White Paper, which originated from the request of the department. Our
original perception of the White Paper was that it is an authoritative report issued by the
government regarding some legal matters. What is then its relevance to the industrial engineers?
Upon research, we found that this uncommon genre has recently been turned by technology
companies into a powerful tool to showcase or generate business for their new products or services.
In publishing a White Paper, usually by posting it on the internet, the companies aim to persuade
subtly through information and analysis, instead of using the emotional language traditionally
employed in advertisements. The information and analysis are orientated towards either the
industry, giving an overview of the state-of-art technology, or the product, highlighting its features
and benefits. In terms of technicality, there is a cline. Some White Papers are highly technical (such
as regarding B2B and B2C businesses), while some are not (such as about how to make money on
YouTube), depending on their area and topic.

Authenticity, Specificity and Complexity

Having understood what White Papers are, we went on to consider important questions in
designing any ESP course, including authenticity, specificity and complexity. We came to a
conclusion that the White Paper was the right genre to teach the industrial engineers.

The first question is authenticity: How authentic can we be in the tasks, texts & assessments?
Does the context reflect the richness and complexity of real life? (Herrington & Herrington 2006)
Do the input materials demonstrate the professional discourse? (Dudley-Evans & St John 1998)
Do learners take up roles that are authentic to them? Do they collaborate? (Widdowson 1978)

37
Does the task require integration of multiple kinds of knowledge and skills? (Darling-Hammond
& Snyder 2000)

In the case of the White Paper, the context is authentic, being engineering-related though
non-specific (as illustrated by the topics shown above). This reflects the wide variety of jobs taken
up by industrial engineering graduates. The materials are also authentic. All the samples of the
White Paper are posted by companies and professional associations on publicly accessible internet
sites. The learners have an authentic role to play. They are given a scenario in that they work for
an engineering consultancy, which assigns them to write a White Paper on an industry trend
relevant to an area in industrial engineering.

The last aspect of authenticity is regarding task, which is the most tricky. While the White
Paper has become more and more popular as an educational and a promotional tool for technology
companies for their products, a few industrial engineers may not have to write a White Paper as
part of their work, depending on their job nature. Yet writing a White Paper involves describing a
trend as well as analysing it, including its challenges. This would require the integration of
disseminating information with persuasion, targeted towards both the technical and lay audiences.
It is exactly the integration of such skills which is highly valued in many industrial engineering-
related jobs, in consultancies, banks and insurance companies, just to name a few. So in this sense
the White Paper as a task is highly authentic.

The next consideration is specificity: How specific should we make tasks, texts and
assessments to a particular workplace-related genre? There are two options, teaching either highly
specific genres for a particular workplace or general communication skills which are adaptable to
different scenarios. As discussed above, we take a general approach in teaching students a variety
of White Papers, to help them make principled choices about the content, language and formatting
appropriate for the area they choose to write an industry trend about.

The two concerns above, authenticity and specificity, are real concerns from teachers’
perspective, yet they might not be obvious to our students. The last consideration is different, as it
is an aspect which the students immediately find relevant, that is, complexity: To the teachers, the

38
question is: Are the tasks, texts and assessments complex enough, both cognitively and
linguistically, for a course for senior Engineering students? The answer is positive, as writing a
White Paper, an ill-defined genre which is totally new to students, is of course very challenging
for students, who have to understand what a White Paper is, and all the writing techniques it entails,
before they can make a successful attempt. On the other hand, to students, the same question is
translated as: Are the tasks, texts and assessments manageable enough, both cognitively and
linguistically, for a three-credit course in the university? As teachers, we have to ensure that the
answer to our students is positive as well. Ever since we started teaching this ESP course, we have
undertaken to experiment on different strategies, and amend them according to how receptive they
were in the learners’ end, which are detailed in the following.

Evolution of our teaching strategies in coping with complexity

In the first year we started teaching the White Paper (2015), we focused more on the challenge
that it was an unusual genre. On top of teaching writing techniques in general, we showed students
authentic examples and highlighted formatting features, such as the use of sub-headings, diagrams,
callouts (or pull quotes, which are short portions of text pulled from the body of the White Paper
and isolated in an open area to draw readers’ attention) and company boiler plates (an
organisation’s standard description that is used repeatedly without change) (Figure 1).

39
40
 Figure 1: Formatting features of White Papers

Our students responded rather well to our teaching of formatting. They could produce White
Papers with the special formatting features. Yet they still lacked real understanding of what a White
Paper was. What was even more challenging for them was to write about an industry trend for both
technical and lay audiences - writing about an industry trend was already very demanding for them,

41
not to mention expounding on the trend for audiences, both technical and lay, who differ vastly in
both their level of specialist knowledge and orientations (the technical audience being more
interested in trends of technical advancement, and the lay is in more general applications). What
was more significant was that students failed to write persuasively. Writing a White Paper involves
skills more than description and analysis, in which engineering students are usually competent. It
requires them to persuade, and not just to persuade, but to persuade subtly but giving objective
facts for the audience to make informed analysis, which are highly sophisticated cognitive and
linguistic skills, especially for engineering students.

Therefore when we offered the course again in the second year (2016), we gave more
scaffolding to help our students: First, we did not just show them samples of our own choices. We
asked them to search the internet and identify samples related to their area of interest, be it logistics,
operation management or others. It was hoped that in the searching process, they could understand
better how different White Paper writers narrowed down topics and chose a certain level of
technicality. We then analysed some samples with the students in terms of the (business)
opportunities presented in the papers, the types of individuals / companies targeted, and the
importance for the targets to take advantage of such opportunities. In this connection, we helped
our students perform thorough audience analysis as to whether the major targets are lay people or
technical professionals, or both, their level of technical knowledge and their motivation in using
the product / service, that is, what they want / need to know. Such focused analyses help students
understand the salient points to be covered in their own writing.

We also gave students more input in how to write about a trend, which is defined as ‘a general
development or change in a situation or in the way that people are behaving’ (Cambridge Online
Dictionary) and ‘the accelerating present’ by Rohit Bargava, a marketing expert. Three questions
can thus be raised: firstly, what is happening at present? Secondly, is the trend accelerating? Thirdly,
is it having an impact (on how we do / believe / buy / sell something)? To help students address
the last two questions, we taught them the language to predict about the future (the use of will /
shall / would / should / modals). More importantly, they were made aware that their choices depend
on their level of confidence about the trend, that is, how confident they were that a certain trend
would happen.

42
 The greatest challenge lay in teaching students how to write persuasively. We showed them
how informative and persuasive languages were used in different parts of a White Paper, and how
to write in a reasoned tone, so that the audience would obtain an impression that they could make
informed decisions about using a product / service or not, instead of being pushed into it.

The outcome of all this hard work was that students performed better. They could produce
White Papers to present a well-justified prediction about an industry trend, with a certain target in
mind. However, unlike the Literature Review for their Final-year Project they learned to write
about in the first part of the course, they seemed to have distanced themselves from the current
task. As reflected in the Post-course Survey they participated, they still doubted the relevance of
the White Paper to their future career (‘not sure what’s the connection between the White Paper
and my job’), and hence they were not passionate in writing the White Paper.

Teaching persuasion through persuasion

To rise to this challenge, a different strategy was adopted in the third year of our teaching
(2017). The writer happened to be the only teacher teaching two classes. On top of every good
practice mentioned above, I strategically persuaded students the benefits of writing the White
Paper: how it would help them promote business in the long run, and its immediate relevance to
them as e senior engineering students who were looking for internship opportunities. In Hong
Kong, it is very common for second- and third-year engineering students to seek for internship
programmes to join in the summer vacation, or even for a whole year (by taking a gap year), to
gain hands-on experience, and to enhance their employability when they apply for jobs after
graduation. On identifying two students who had authentic experience in writing White Papers
during internship in an industrial engineering company, the writer invited them to share their first-
hand experience with their classmates. They also agreed to have their sharing video-recorded so
that it could be shown to the other class (video can be accessed from
http://streaming.cle.ust.hk/media/courses/lang4032/2017_fall/video_1.mp4).

43
 The two students, Isis and Earnest, took up the job of supply chain intern in a world-leading
manufacturer in high-tech polymer. Earnest, together with the team he worked for (Logistics
Performance Management Team), were asked to organise a campaign to raise the awareness of
safety, which turned out to be a success. He was then asked by his supervisor to write a White
Paper on Industrial Safety, to be published in a newspaper in the industry to further promote the
idea, as well as encouraging other practitioners to join the campaign in the following year. On the
other hand, Isis, who worked for the Transportation, Distribution and Safety Team, was assigned
to conduct some experiments and present the results through a White Paper. The objective was to
promote the use of bottom-discharge technique, which was proven to be better than the top-
discharge one, among customers and service providers in China. From their authentic workplace
experiences, these two students gained an important insight, which they emphasised in their
sharing: ‘Writing a White Paper is a must in the IELM career’. They used three reasons to support
their stance: firstly, industrial engineers are asked by immediate supervisors to write White Papers
so as to win the support from the top management to launch projects; secondly, the White Paper
will provide them a tool to compare existing solutions with theirs own solutions, to persuade users
to adopt what they propose; and finally, writing White Papers would allow them to walk in the
shoes of different audiences, to cater to their particular needs and turn highly technical topics into
more accessible information.

Although the conclusion that ‘writing a White Paper is a must in the IELM career’ might
sound dogmatic, it was well grounded, being an honest reflection made by two students regarding
their real work experiences. The fact that their classmates could directly hear the message from
the ‘horse’s mouth’ had made a real difference to the latter’s perception. They were very interested
in what these two students had shared, and asked a lot of follow-up questions. When it was their
turn to write a White Paper for assessment purposes, they managed to perform better, as evidenced
in the following outline of a paper written by a student, entitled ‘Zero Pellet loss: A global target
towards sustainability for plastic industry’:
Sustainability: Going beyond passive practices
Why do we need to prevent pellet loss?
Simple preventive measures: Reducing your pellet loss to zero
Risks and rewards: The tradeoff between extra resources and benefits

44
From the outline it can be seen that the student has learned the gist of writing a White Paper,
making persuasion through facts and analysis.

More importantly, students acquired a much more positive attitude towards writing White
Papers. This was reflected by the Post-course Survey, in which they were given a number of
statements to respond to, by indicating they ‘agree’, ‘strongly agree’, ‘disagree’, or ‘strongly
disagree’. When being asked about “what aspects of the course were the most useful to you?”,
10.3% (i.e. 3 out of a total of 29 students) indicated that it was the White Paper. Although 10.3%
might not seem too significant, this was already a marked improvement in attitude as there was
practically no student (0%) who made the same choice in the parallel survey conducted in 2016.
Moreover, in the last part which allowed them to give free responses, their feedback was most
encouraging, including:

The learning of White Papers has been a delightful experience.

Writing White Papers is challenging but fun.
It was great that we were taught how to write White Papers, as it will be useful for our
future IE career.

It was interesting to note that the students also expressed that they were confident in
writing a White Paper. The following are two general questions:

Q.2 – I know how to organise and write a White Paper.

Strongly agree 24.1% (7 students)
Agree 75.9% (22 students)
Q3 - I have improved my ability to write a White Paper.
Strongly agree 24.1% (7 students)
Agree 75.9% (22 students)

Not only did the vast majority indicated that they knew how to organise and write a White
Paper, they were also very positive when they were asked more specific questions, for example,
regarding their audience awareness in Question 4;

45
 Q4 - I have a better understanding of how to adapt my language for different
audiences and purposes.
Strongly agree 27.6% (8 students)
Agree 72.4% (21 students)
and their ability to compare different possible solutions in Question 5:
Q5 - I have improved my ability to explain the feasibility of a proposal against other
options.
Strongly agree 24.1% (7 students)
Agree 75.9% (22 students)
It seemed that their more positive attitude towards White Paper has brought along a parallel
outcome, better written products, and a more ‘delightful learning experience’, which was the most
valuable of all.

The lesson learnt

What is the lesson teachers have learned? The lesson is that in teaching ESP writing, we do
not simply ‘teach’ persuasion. We have to ‘persuade’ students the importance of learning this in
the first place, so that students can internalise its value, which will ultimately bring a difference to
how they write. It is because teaching is both a science and an art. Therefore as teachers, we should
always ‘stay hungry, stay foolish’.

References
Darling-Hammond, L. & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 523-545.
Dudley-Evans, T. & St John, M.J. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A Multi-
disciplinary Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herrington, T. & Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic learning environments in higher education.
Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

46
 How do we teach them all?
A Needs Analysis for a Pre-Sessional EGAP Curricular Review

Angela Meyer Sterzik

Fanshawe College

Abstract
Making EAP course outcomes congruent with post-secondary demands requires a needs analysis,
in which a target situation analysis is imperative (Bocanegra-Valle, 2016; Hyland, 2016; Cabinda,
2013; Rosenfeld, Leung, & Oltman, 2001; Upton, 2012). This article details the theoretical
considerations for a needs analysis, and reports the quantitative findings of a target situation
analysis completed for a pre-sessional EGAP program at a Canadian College. 51 Professors from
the college and a university completed questionnaires ranking academic tasks necessary for post-
secondary success in all four language skill areas (reading, writing, listening, and speaking). 25 of
the 43 language tasks were identified as ‘approaching very important’ and ‘very important’ to
academic success at the tertiary level in Canada. The results indicated that major curricular changes
were warranted, especially at the two most advanced levels, and examples are explicated.

Keywords: EAP, EGAP, needs analysis, target situation analysis, post-secondary education,
curriculum development, Canada

Introduction
English is the language that has spread the most with globalization (Crystal, 2003; Liu, Chang,
Yang & Sun, 2011; Steger, 2003), and as such, English preparatory programs have grown into a
“multi-million dollar enterprise” (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002). In response to the increasing
international student market, many post-secondary institutions offer an in-house English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) program or have an agreement with another institution`s EAP program
that is accepted in lieu of a standardised assessment such as IELTS or TOEFL. But what is
successful completion of an EAP course? “Many ESL/EFL teachers and program administrators
struggle with how to determine if learners have achieved the English language proficiency

47
necessary for the contexts in which they will use the language” (Green & Andrade, 2010, p. 322).
Attempts to address these issues require a needs analysis (Atai & Nazari, 2011; Bocanegra-Valle,
2016; Bruce, 2011; Cabinda, 2013; Flowerdew, 2013; Huang, 2010; Hyland, 2006, 2016; Liu et
al., 2011), which is defined by Hyland (2006) as “the techniques for collecting and assessing
information relevant to course design: it is the means of establishing the how and what of a course”
(p. 73, italics in original), and is “[b]ehind every successful EAP course (p.74).
EAP programs begin with descriptions of both the present and future (Benesch, 2001;
Brinton, Snow & Wesche, 2003; Bocanegra-Valle, 2016; Bruce, 2011; Hyland, 2006). The present
situation analysis defines students’ current level of proficiency in relation to the appropriate EAP
level. The target situation analysis (TSA) isolates the linguistic and task demands required for
successful completion of post-secondary programs that the students intend to attend (Bocanegra-
Valle, 2016; Bruce, 2011). For EAP course outcomes to be consistent with the target context(s),
the linguistic demands must be clear (Alderson, 2000; Rosenfeld et al., 2001; Zheng & De Jong,
2011). Once a TSA is complete, the requirements can be translated into course outcomes to frame
“the specific English language proficiency tasks required for competent academic performance at
the undergraduate and graduate levels” (Rosenfeld et al., 2001, p. 1).
Detailing these objectives is complex and requires theoretical, methodological, and
practical considerations (Bocanegra-Valle, 2016). Fortunately, there are over four decades’ worth
of EAP needs analysis research, including English for specific academic purposes (ESAP), and
English for general academic purposes (EGAP) (Bocanegra-Valle, 2016; Hyland, 2016). The
literature provides the researcher with the requisite components, considerations, and steps involved
in a TSA (Bocanegra-Valle, 2016). Unfortunately, very few provide concrete examples of each
component. Further, articles reporting findings in all four language skill areas are quite limited
(Huang, 2010; Flowerdew, 2013). The singular report that includes all four skills located during
this project was over a decade old and was completed for the new TOEFL (see Rosenfeld et al.,
2001), which may not be transferable to EAP classrooms. The vast majority of EAP needs analysis
research focuses on one or two language skills (Bocanegra-Valle, 2016) and most often writing
(Flowerdew, 2013), variances between student and instructor perceptions (Liu et al., 2011), or
makes recommendations for data collection methodologies (see Bocanegra-Valle, 2016 for an
overview). Additionally, very few give specific examples of curricular changes based on findings,
and the few that do, tend not to supply data (see Hyland, 2016 as an example). Lastly, the majority

48
of TSA research comes from in-sessional, during post-secondary, EAP programs which tend to
employ ESAP. These gaps may disadvantage smaller, pre-sessional (preparatory), EGAP programs
that are not housed within large, research-focused institutions with faculty trained in research. For
these programs, a needs analysis can seem overwhelming. Hence, the purpose of this paper is
three-fold:
1. to explicate the major components in a TSA
2. to present TSA findings in all four skill areas
3. to detail curricular changes based on the TSA
The TSA process described below is based on the stages presented by Bocanegra-Valle (2016):
pre-data collection considerations, data collection and analysis, and application to curricular
review.
Needs Analysis Process: Pre-Data Collection Considerations
Prior to beginning data collection, several factors must be considered: the context and population,
the purpose of the analysis (Bocanegra-Valle, 2016), and the theory of language (Alderson, 2000;
Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Fulcher & Davidson, 2007, 2009; Rosenfeld et al., 2001; Taylor &
Geranpayeh, 2011; Wu & Stansfield, 2001).
Context and Population
In 2001, there were 33 students intending to demonstrate English proficiency through the EGAP
program. In 2017, the program boasted over 300 students. Clearly, the student population has
increased; subsequently, the number of post-secondary programs in which the students intend to
study has also grown substantially. In addition, the faculty were tasked with a major curricular
review because of a restructuring initiative by the college in the 2015-16 academic year. Needs
analyses should not be used as a “one-off activity”; they should be cyclical and applied at different
times for improvement (Bocanegra-Valle, 2016). The TSA data had, in fact, been collected a few
years prior, but the program restructure required a much more detailed review of the data and many
more curricular changes.
The EAP program is pre-sessional, and prior to the restructure, had five, one-semester (16-
week) levels. The program now has ten, eight-week levels which range from low beginner to
advanced, and the exit levels are the three highest levels. The percentages required for language
proficiency are dictated by the admissions committees for each post-secondary program. To
illustrate, 70% in Level 8 is required to enter a college business fundamentals program; 75% in

49
Level 9 is the minimum for most two-year college diplomas; and 80% in Level 10 is required for
diplomas in medical fields and undergraduate and graduate programs at a university. While
specificity in EAP programs has been shown to improve students’ success and motivation, there
are many contexts in which specificity is problematic (Hyland, 2016), and the present program is
one.
The program is classified as EGAP. The students come from multiple linguistic
backgrounds and plan to study a variety of disciplines. Given the varied knowledge bases and
specialized vocabulary that students will require, it is not possible to explicitly prepare them all in
their desired content areas. In pre-sessional programs, and in-sessional programs in which students
have not declared a major, it is difficult to develop curricula with commonalities that meet all of
the students’ needs (Hyland, 2016). Additionally, the EGAP faculty are trained in TESOL,
linguistics, applied linguistics and education, rather than students’ target fields of study. Thus, the
program adheres to Spack’s (1988) contention that content teaching should be left to the content
experts. Approximately 80% of most texts consist of words from the General Service List (GSL)
as compared to only 8-10% coming from the Academic Word List (AWL), and only up to 5% of a
text is subject-specific (Nation, 2001). In addition, many ‘semi-technical’ items on the AWL have
multiple meanings and varied frequencies depending on the discipline (Hyland & Tse, 2007).
Therefore, the focus of the program is on ‘general principles of inquiry and rhetoric’ (Spack, 1988)
and other ‘register-level features’ of academic discourse (Hyland, 2016) with the intent to
maximize transferability to multiple academic contexts (Benesch, 2001; Hyland, 2006, 2016;
Johns, 1997; Spack, 1988).
Considering the purposes of the curricula and the context, the target audience is adult
(minimum 17 years) NNSs of English needing to demonstrate English proficiency for post-
secondary studies at a college or university via the EGAP program. The educational backgrounds
of the students are only relevant for the admissions requirements of the post-secondary institutions
to which they plan to apply and not to the EGAP curricula. Once the context and population have
been defined, the purpose of the needs assessment can be detailed.
Purpose
Students’ preparedness for post-secondary studies in EGAP programs are based on formative and
summative assessments which are (should be) directly linked to curricular objectives. However,
the majority of research in language assessment is related to large scale assessments which is often

50
not applicable to classroom assessments (Fulcher & Davidson, 2007; Green & Andrade, 2010).
Further, although classroom assessments are an everyday occurrence for language teachers, in
order to foster appropriate inferences of students’ post-secondary readiness, valid classroom
assessments are a necessity. “One of the most common mistakes made in language testing is for
the test writer to begin the process by writing a set of items or tasks that are intuitively felt to be
relevant to the test takers” (Fulcher & Davidson, 2007, p. 62). This practice can lead to assessments
that do not assess or measure what they are intended to, which renders them inappropriate, or what
was formerly labeled ‘invalid’ (Alderson & Banerjee, 2002; Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Fulcher &
Davidson, 2007; Shohamy, 2008). The bases for validity arguments in classroom language
assessments are a well-defined target audience, assessment purpose, language theory,
methodological approach, and target situation (Alderson, 2000; Alderson & Banerjee, 2002;
Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Fulcher, 2010; Fulcher & Davidson, 2007, 2009; Green & Andrade,
2010; Spaan, 2006; Zheng & De Jong, 2011). A well-defined target situation is imperative in EGAP
curricular design because “[i]f the assessment criteria used in EAP tests do not reflect the criteria
against which the students’ performance will be judged in academic contexts, then the scores
achieved are less easily interpretable with reference to the students’ ability to perform tasks in
those contexts” (Banerjee & Wall, 2006, p. 54). Therefore, the purpose of the target situation
analysis was to identify the academic tasks and their linguistic components that students should be
able to perform to succeed in their post-secondary programs (Bocanegra-Valle, 2016).
Language Theory
Valid and reliable EAP curricula begin with descriptions of theoretical models which inform the
selection of the course outcomes which will frame the language assessments (Alderson, 2000;
Alderson & Banerjee, 2002; Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Fulcher, 2010; Fulcher & Davidson, 2007,
2009; Rosenfeld et al., 2001; Spaan, 2006). Models of language assessment describe the “known
universe of constructs” (Fulcher & Davidson, 2007, p. 37) and include statements about language
knowledge and use as well as descriptions of the contexts and the language required within the
contexts (Alderson, 2000; Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Fulcher & Davidson, 2007, 2009; McNamara,
1996; Rosenfeld et al., 2001; Zheng & De Jong, 2011). Frameworks are created by selecting
specific aspects from the model that will be assessed (Fulcher & Davidson, 2007). In an EGAP
classroom, the framework is the specific language tasks that will be taught and assessed and should
be selected from the language model. However, “[i]f we are to make interpretations about

51
language ability on the basis of performance on language assessments, we need to define this
ability” (Bachman & Palmer, 2010, p. 43).
The EGAP program is based on the same theoretical underpinnings of communicative
competence and proficiency as the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB). The CLB model of
communicative proficiency is based on a blending of three communicative models (Pawlikowska-
Smith, 2002): the model of communicative language ability (Bachman, 1990; Bachman & Palmer,
1996), the pedagogical model of communicative competence (Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, & Thurrell,
1995) and the model of communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Canale, 1983). All
of these models discuss language as multidimensional; accordingly, language proficiency is
viewed as more than a system of grammatical and structural rules (Stewart, 2005). Instead,
language includes contextual aspects of communication. For instance, Hudson (2005) states that
“[l]anguage takes place in a social context as a social act, and this frequently needs to be recognized
in language assessment” (p. 205). Furthermore, Poehner (2011) argues that language is dialectic;
and therefore, language assessments need to take this into account; we contend that the same is
true for EAP courses. Once the theoretical components have been defined, data collection decisions
can then be made.

Methods
Needs analyses are complex and should employ a mixed-methodology approach including
multiple stakeholders (Bocanegra-Valle, 2016). Therefore, multiple data sources and stakeholders
were included in the TSA process (Atai & Nazari, 2011; Bocanegra-Valle, 2016; Bruce, 2011;
Hyland, 2016; Huang, 2010): semi-structured interviews were conducted with a few program
graduates currently attending post-secondary programs as well as several Professors who
completed the survey, but due to space limitations, the qualitative analysis of the interviews will
not be discussed. However, a detailed description of the major aspects of the quantitative data
collection and its results follow.
Survey
A survey was the main source of data to identify the language-based tasks that students will
perform in their future academic activities (Appendix A). In order to create questions for the survey,
multiple secondary sources were collected and analysed for themes, such as Rosenfeld et al.’s
(2001) findings, and a large number of post-secondary documents such as course outlines,

52
assignments, and rubrics across multiple disciplines from several colleges and a University. In
addition, curricular and assessment materials from several other EAP programs were included. A
qualitative analysis of those materials was completed to create survey questions which were
framed by our theory of language. To specify, the questions were categorized in the four skill areas
(reading, writing, listening and speaking) and focused on discourse level academic tasks and
language functions as opposed to discreet grammatical structures or specific linguistic features.
The survey included open-ended questions, but the majority were in a 7-pt. Likert scale format
which ranged from 6 = crucially important to N/A which meant that students would never have to
complete such a task in the respondent’s course. Important to note is that the task-specific questions
focused on the academic and language abilities that any student, not specifically NNSs, needs
because the identification of the language skill requirements for any student is the essence of a
TSA (Benesch, 2001; Bruce, 2011; Hyland, 2006; Rosenfeld et. al., 2001).
Procedures
The survey was piloted to several faculty members and revised based on their feedback. The
stakeholders chosen for survey dissemination were the professors in the institutions that receive
EGAP graduates as they could provide descriptions of the tasks “judged…to be important for
competent academic performance across a range of subject areas” (Rosenfeld et al., p.1). An
invitation to complete the survey with a description of the purpose was sent, via Survey Monkey,
to professors at the college and a university. Recipients of the survey were informed that they may
forward it to colleagues whom they knew had experience with NNSs in their courses. In addition
to the electronic dissemination, a printable .pdf was made available by e-mail, and limited paper
copies were available within the School of Language and Liberal Studies at the college.
Consequently, a response rate is impossible to calculate as it is unknown how many professors
received the survey. 51 surveys were returned in total (Table 1): 29 from college professors and 22
from university professors. Not all returned surveys were complete in each skill area; thus, surveys
in which a skill are was left blank were omitted from the data of that section.

Table 1: Respondent Demographics (N = 51)

College Faculty Surveys Percentage Percentage of
Received from Total
Institution
Language and Liberal 25 86 49
Studies

53
 (Psychology,
Communications, Writing,
Sociology)
Business 4 14 8
University Writing 6 27 11.7

Business Management 3 14 5.8

Economics 13 59 25.5

Results
Data Analyses
A percent zero analysis was run for all task statements on the survey. If half of the respondents
chose N/A, meaning a task was not required, the task would be omitted from the data analysis. In
order for a task to be necessary, it must be supported by a majority of the stakeholders as a
legitimate performance requirement (Rosenfeld et al., 2001). No task statement was removed from
data analysis. For all responses, the mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and standard error (SE)
were computed (Rosenfeld et al., 2001; Huang; 2010). M is used to supply an absolute importance
index from which more important to less important statements can be differentiated (Rosenfeld et
al., 2001). The SD provides an index of the variability of the ratings of each statement, and the SE
calculates an estimation of the variability of each mean (Rosenfeld et al., 2001; Huang, 2010). The
lower the SE, the more accurate M can be taken as an estimation of the population (Rosenfeld et
al., 2001). Lastly, analyses were not run on subgroups (college versus university) as a minimum
of 25 respondents is needed for data accuracy and stability (Rosenfeld et al., 2001), and fewer than
25 university professors returned surveys. A mean rating of 4.5, ‘approaching very important’ was
chosen to identify the most important tasks and skills for several reasons. Tasks that were rated
above ‘rather important’ were easily identifiable and represented respondents from virtually every
faculty in this study. As the program is EGAP, the mandate is to prepare students for a variety of
faculties and fields. Furthermore, a mean rating that is approaching ‘very important’ (5.0) for
academic success is a clear basis for its inclusion into curricular outcomes. The professors in this
study rated 25 of the 43 skill statements as ‘approaching very important’ or higher: nine in listening
and speaking, seven in reading, and nine in writing. Tables 2 to 4 display the M, SD, and SE for
each language skill area.
Language Skills
For listening and speaking skills (Table 2), college and university professors identified three skills

54
as ‘very important’ and six as ‘approaching very important’. The three aural/oral skills rated as the
most important were understanding oral instructions in classes or tutorial sessions (M = 5.39, SD
= 0.98), understanding at least 80% of material delivered in lecture with visual reinforcement (M
= 5.25, SD = 0.85), and asking for extra help, clarification, or explanations outside of class (M =
5.05, SD = 0.88). The remaining six skills rated as ‘approaching very important’ were evenly
divided between listening and speaking. The listening skills approaching ‘very important’ are
distinguishing between key points and less important information in lectures (M = 4.90, SD = 0.94),
taking lecture notes that capture main ideas (M = 4.76, SD = 1.22), and 80% lecture comprehension
without visual aids (M = 4.62, SD = 1.05). The three speaking skills rated as approaching very
important are being able to confidently engage in group work in class or tutorials (M = 4.74, SD
= 1.43), asking questions in class or tutorials (M = 4.62, SD = 1.16), and making presentations in
classes (M = 4.56, SD = 1.26).

Table 2: Listening and speaking competencies and rankings (N = 51)

LISTENING/SPEAKING COMPETENCIES M SE SD
Asking Questions in classes or tutorial session 4.62 0.16 1.16
Answering questions in classes or tutorial 4.49 0.15 1.13
sessions
Making presentations in classes or tutorial 4.56 0.17 1.26
sessions
Understanding oral instructions in classes or 5.39 0.13 0.98
tutorial sessions
Engaging confidently in group work in classes 4.74 0.15 1.07
or tutorial sessions
Engaging confidently in group work to 4.43 0.20 1.43
complete assignments outside of class
Conversing casually in class 3.74 0.17 1.24
Understanding slang/idiomatic English 3.74 0.15 1.11
Asking for extra help, clarification or 5.05 0.12 0.88
explanations outside of class
Understanding at least 80% of material 4.62 0.14 1.05
delivered in lectures without any visual
reinforcement
Understanding at least 80% of material 5.25 0.11 0.85
delivered in lectures with visual reinforcement
Distinguishing between key points and 4.90 0.13 0.94
digressions or less pertinent information in a
lecture
Taking lecture notes that capture key points 4.76 0.17 1.22

55
 Table 3 presents the results for the reading competencies. Of the nine reading skills, four
were rated ‘very important’ and three were rated ‘approaching very important’. The two reading
skills rated the most important by college and university professors were accurate comprehension
of assignment and project information (M = 5.38, SD = 1.05), and at least 80% comprehension of
course materials and academic journals (M = 5.20, SD = 0.95). Rated similarly, and both ‘very
important’, were being able to keep up with the reading volume (M = 5.08, SD = 0.97) and being
able to distinguish fact from opinion when reading (M = 5.06, SD = 0.96). The three reading
competencies that were rated as ‘approaching very important’ were understanding discipline-
specific vocabulary (M = 4.87, SD = 0.80), the ability to evaluate research sources (M = 4.83, SD
= 1.35), and skimming for the gist and scanning for details (M = 4.71, SD = 1.11).

Table 3: Reading competencies and rankings (N = 49)

READING COMPETENCIES M SE SD
Reading course materials and discipline-related 5.20 0.13 0.95
journal articles with at least 80% comprehension
Keeping up with the volume of required textbook 5.08 0.13 0.97
readings
Reading assignment / project information accurately 5.38 0.15 1.05
Reading without any translating into first language 4.34 0.17 1.22
Using an English dictionary effectively 4.26 0.17 1.22
Understanding discipline-specific meanings of 4.87 0.11 0.80
vocabulary
Distinguishing between fact and opinion when reading 5.06 0.13 0.96
Evaluating sources when researching and reading 4.83 0.19 1.35
Skimming texts for an overview and scanning for 4.71 0.16 1.11
specific information

Only one writing competency was rated ‘very important’, but eight were ‘approaching very
important’ (Table 4). Producing written work that has been proofread, revised, and edited to an
acceptable standard (M = 5.06, SD = 1.32) was the most important writing competency for the
professors in this study. Accurately paraphrasing (M = 4.97, SD = 1.13), and successfully
incorporating prior feedback to new written work (M = 4.95, SD = 1.16) were the highest rated of
the writing competencies ‘approaching very important’. The remaining six writing competencies
‘approaching very important’ were researching and writing 800-1250 word essays (M = 4.72, SD
= 1.63), synthesising material from different sources that express competing viewpoints or areas
of emphasis (M = 4.66, SD = 1.49), writing essay exams (M = 4.58, SD = 1.93), writing critical

56
analysis essays (M = 4.58, SD = 2.06), writing short answers on tests and exams (M =4.56, SD =
1.71), and communicating effectively in writing to the professor (M 4.54, SD = 1.07).
Table 5 presents the competencies rated as ‘very important’ to academic success at the
tertiary level by the college and university professors in this study. Of the eight ‘very important’
competencies, four are in the reading domain, two are in the listening domain, and speaking and
writing each have a single competency.

Table 4: Writing competencies and rankings (N = 48)

WRITING COMPETENCIES M SE SD
Writing summaries of text chapters, presentations, 4.27 0.21 1.48
journal articles, etc.
Synthesizing material from different sources that 4.66 0.21 1.49
express competing viewpoints or areas of emphasis
Writing memos, business letters 3.47 0.25 1.76
Writing a critical review of a book or journal article 4.27 0.22 1.58
Writing short answers on tests and exams 4.56 0.24 1.71
Writing an essay exam (i.e. writing under a time 4.58 0.27 1.93
constraint, without access to dictionaries or other
reference materials)
summary essays 3.70 0.28 1.94
chronological essays 2.81 0.29 2.04
critical analysis essays 4.58 0.29 2.06
compare / contrast essays 3.93 0.29 2.04
classification essays 2.91 0.30 2.10
cause and effect essays 3.43 0.31 2.20
persuasive essays 4.35 0.28 1.99
Researching and writing a short (800-1250 word) 4.72 0.23 1.63
essay
Researching and writing a longer (1500-3000 word) 4.27 0.27 1.87
essay
Knowing and using MLA formatting 3.50 0.32 2.26
Knowing and using APA formatting 3.39 0.30 2.11
Accurately paraphrasing the ideas of others 4.97 0.16 1.13
Communicating effectively in writing with the 4.54 0.15 1.07
professor when necessary (i.e. via e-mails or letters)
Producing written work that demonstrates an ability to 5.06 0.19 1.32
proofread, revise, and edit to an acceptable standard
Successfully incorporating prior feedback when 4.95 0.16 1.16
submitting new written work
Table 5: Competencies across language skills rated as ‘very important’ (above 5.0)
LANGUAGE COMPETENCY M
SKILL

57
 Listening Understanding oral instructions in classes or tutorial 5.39
sessions
Understanding at least 80% of material delivered in 5.25
lectures with visual reinforcement
Speaking Asking for extra help, clarification or explanations outside 5.05
of class
Reading Reading course materials and discipline-related journal 5.20
articles with at least 80% comprehension
Keeping up with the volume of required textbook readings 5.08
Reading assignment / project information accurately 5.38
Distinguishing between fact and opinion when reading 5.06
Writing Producing written work that demonstrates an ability to 5.06
proofread, revise, and edit to an acceptable standard

Discussion
Overall, the results indicated that the receptive language domains, reading and listening, are the
most important for post-secondary success, both in the number of skills identified as ‘very
important’ and ‘approaching very important’. Comparing the present study’s importance ratings to
Rosenfeld et al.’s (2001) undergraduate faculty ratings showed similarities and differences. Like
Rosenfeld’s respondents, professors in this study rated more receptive competencies as ‘very
important’ than productive competencies. Both studies identified the importance of reading and
understanding academic and course materials and the ability to identify main ideas of texts.
Interestingly, both studies highlighted the need to read and understand assignment instructions
accurately. Additionally, Huang’s (2010) qualitative analysis of instructor and student responses
found that “at both the graduate and undergraduate levels…skills in the reading domain were more
important than skills in the speaking and/or listening domains” (p.532), and were especially
difficult when coupled with critical reading expectations. This is not surprising given that
“[i]ndependent reading accounts for as much as 85% of learning in college” (Bosley, 2008, p. 285).
Listening skills are also essential to postsecondary success. The present study supports
Rosenfeld’s finding that comprehension of oral instructions is very important to academic success.
In regard to lectures, the respondents in this study expected students to comprehend 80% of lecture
content, which can be assumed to largely include four of the remaining five listening skills
Rosenfeld found most important: “understand factual information and details”, “understand the
main ideas and their supporting details”, “distinguish between important information and minor
details” and “understand important terminology related to the subject matter” (Rosenfeld et al.,

58
2001, p.18). Although the present study did not inquire about inferences specifically, they are
required to make distinctions of fact and opinion, as well as to mentally organise a text (written or
oral) into its hierarchal structure (Kintsch, 1998; Meyer Sterzik, 2017; Perfetti & Stafura, 2014).
Thus, the data also support Rosenfeld’s finding that making appropriate inferences while listening
in academic contexts is very important. A contrast in receptive skills, however, is this study
identified more reading competencies as ‘approaching very important’ and ‘very important’ (nine)
than listening competencies (seven); Rosenfeld et al. (2001) found more listening competencies
(seven) to be ‘at least important’ but only four in the reading domain. Perhaps this is due to an
increase in web-enhanced and online course content since 2001, which often requires more reading
than listening.
‘Very important’ writing and speaking competencies were not common to the two studies.
The sole writing competency identified as ‘very important’ in the present study focused on
producing written work to an acceptable standard; whereas, Rosenfeld’s respondents identified
producing well-organised written work. A speaking competency, asking for help or clarification
outside of class, was ranked ‘very important’ in this study, but no speaking competencies were
identified as such in the 2001 study. Furthermore, when including the speaking competencies that
were rated ‘approaching very important’ in this study to the 2001 results, this study found three:
confidently engaging in group work in class/tutorials, asking questions in class/tutorials, and
making presentations, but there were no speaking skills included in the ‘important skills’ in
Rosenfeld et al. (2001). This may be due to the move away from pure-lecture style post-secondary
education in North America over the past 15 years; the academy has seen a growing number of
courses and programs include tutorial and seminar classes in conjunction with lectures at the
diploma and undergraduate levels.
Curricular Review
Level 10 is required for college degree programs, post-degree certificates, and undergraduate and
graduate programs at a university, so it is the most relevant to this article, and examples of tasks
and assignments based on the TSA data are explicated below.
Instead of discreet skills courses, the program restructure included the move to one,
integrated course with three components: reading/writing/grammar (12 hrs/week, 60% of the
overall grade), listening/speaking/pronunciation/ (6 hrs/week, 30%), and a general education credit
course about Canada’s history, people, culture, and government (4 hrs/week, 10%). The integrated

59
model supports the inclusion of extensive reading, reading to write, and reading to speak which
have been supported by other needs analyses (Rosenfeld et al., 2001; Huang, 2010). Further, skills
integration adheres to the CLT framework of our program; students are expected to use language
with dialectic tasks that are as authentic to the target situation as is possible in an EGAP setting.
As is best practice in EGAP, themes were chosen to present the content (Hyland, 2016). Level 10
EAP content is presented through the themes of applied linguistics and globalisation.
Learning and assessment task authenticity were defined using the TSA findings. For
example, in post-secondary reading, students must be able to read a large volume, comprehend
academic journal articles, distinguish between fact and opinion, and evaluate research sources. For
writing in the academy, students must be able to apply feedback to future writings, incorporate and
synthesise sources, paraphrase accurately, and produce critical analysis essays of approximately
four to five pages. These requirements have been used to frame the major essay assignment in
Level 10. To illustrate, the applied linguistics unit includes readings on first and second language
acquisition, pragmatics, language contact, and English dominance. Students are assigned a 1000-
1250 word, summary-critical response essay for which they must read and include a minimum of
three journal articles, one of which they summarise. The assignment consists of two drafts; students
must effectively incorporate feedback from draft one into draft two in order to improve their grade.
Additionally, referenced supports in each body paragraph must be from a minimum of two sources;
the course text and other professor-supplied readings and lecture content are acceptable, but one
source in each body paragraph must be an independently researched, academically-acceptable
source. This requirement causes students to assess sources, paraphrase content, and synthesise
information; all of these tasks are taught and practiced for both formative and summative feedback
prior to essay submission. The rubric for the assignment has the same criteria as an essay
assignment in an undergraduate liberal arts course the author has taught, and students are provided
the rubric.
In order to include some degree of specificity and increase relevance to students’ future
studies or interests, which enhances learning (Hyland, 2016), students in level 10 choose the area
of focus for their research essay. The essay assignment is specific for word-count, rhetorical
structure, and research requirements, but students may explore an area of applied linguistics that
is relevant to their future fields of study or is simply of interest to them. For example, a student
accepted into the aviation diploma program wrote an essay on the development of global aviation

60
English; foreign trained health care professionals have researched dementia delays and other
cognitive benefits with bilinguals; EFL teachers have focused on pedagogy, and many students
who are parents and those who plan to study early childhood education, have chosen a topic
specific to child second language acquisition. The structure of this essay assignment, while not
wholly authentic in that students complete two drafts for grades, incorporates the major reading
and writing competencies identified as necessary for post-secondary success. The TSA definitions
and findings are further incorporated into the curriculum through tutorial-style discussions in the
listening and speaking and the general education credit components of Levels 9 and 10. Lectures
and authentic listening such as Ted Talks related to course themes are included, and students
participate in graded and non-graded tutorial-style discussions in which they must refer to course
content. Micro-level skills and knowledge such as grammatical structures, vocabulary, and
mechanics, as well as strategic competencies such as skimming and circumlocution, and skills
such as note-taking are embedded within the tasks and assignments. The assignment frameworks
not only allow for these skills to be taught, they foster academic preparedness, transferable skills,
and increase academic language proficiency while adhering to our context definition, theory of
language, and methodological approach.
Limitations and EFL Implications
Although we acquired a substantial amount of data, several limitations may not allow for the data
to be transferable to other contexts. The sample size was fairly small and consisted of professors
from only two post-secondary institutions in Southern Ontario; a larger sample would be beneficial
to compare results across institutions and perhaps programs. Additionally, while respondents
represented multiple faculties and disciplines, a future study could target the faculties which
receive the largest numbers of EAP graduates. The use of surveys, while practical and cost
effective, are not without issue (Hyland, 2006). Questions tend to be broad as opposed to focused
to specific learning environments (Huang, 2010), and, therefore, may not elicit data relevant to all
learning situations (Huang, 2010; Bocanegra-Valle, 2016), which could negatively impact students
entering programs with differing methodologies. Lastly, we would remove the questions about
reading without translating and using a dictionary as the respondents were not second language
acquisition experts, and there is some evidence that suggests translating is a metacognitive strategy
that can foster comprehension (Kern, 1994), and NSs use dictionaries, especially when new to a
field of study with unfamiliar jargon.

61
 Standardised language proficiency assessments assess the linguistic readiness of NNSs for
post-secondary studies in English, but subject-specific vocabulary, synthesising multiple sources,
and critical analysis are not necessarily assessed in language proficiency tests. The current study
has described the dialectic contexts in which the language is expected to be used in two North
American post-secondary institutions. Therefore, EAP/ESP instructors in foreign language
contexts may want to include some learning tasks that mirror those in the Western Academy to
better prepare students who wish to study in North America. According to Richardson (1995), there
are two major types of postsecondary educational models, and they tend to be culturally based.
The first follows a reproductive model in which students are taught information so that they are
able to reproduce it. The second type focuses on comprehension and expects students to apply the
information to problems and new contexts. North American institutions are classified within the
comprehending framework (Richardson, 1995; Taillefer, 2005). Students from a reproductive
educational model may not be academically prepared for a comprehending educational model. For
example, a common learning task in North American universities is a tutorial which includes open
discussion. It is not lecture-based, and students are expected to give opinions on course content,
agree and disagree with others’ opinions, and synthesise information across multiple course
readings and lectures. There are context and register ‘acceptable’ language chunks specific to
tutorial-style discussions. Knowledge of and practice with these chunks would benefit those who
may not have experienced such a task. Further, as per Hall’s classification of cultures, high-context
cultures are less likely to value independent opinions, especially when different from the norm;
whereas, lower-context cultures such as Canada and the United States, tend to value opinions that
differ from the norm if they are supported. To illustrate, when teaching critical reading, many of
our advanced EAP students state that disagreeing with a published author, even if they have support
for their disagreement, is difficult or uncomfortable. Additionally, post-secondary reading in
Canada includes assessing texts and interpreting content in relation to other texts; many EAP
students find these skills very difficult, but these skills can be learned (Meyer Sterzik & Fraser,
2012). Students from lower-context cultures should be, at minimum, introduced to these ideologies
and educational practices if not given some practice.
The data from this study also showed that critical analysis essays were the most common
across college and university programs in this study; disagreement and opposing points of view
are an acceptable, if not valued, aspect of critical analyses. Students from academic environments

62
that do not share this practice may be at an academic disadvantage even if their language
proficiency is sufficient. Thus, EFL students intending to attend North American post-secondary
institutions should be made aware of these expectations and how to meet them. They cannot do so
unless they know what is expected, and they have had opportunities to practice and apply feedback,
especially if their educational context differs from the target situation.
Lastly, the differences in findings of this study to those of Rosenfeld et al. (2001), and
Huang (2010), which included many more writing competencies, support Huang’s (2010) and
Bocanegra-Valle’s (2016) cautions of using needs analysis research as a basis for curriculum
development; some findings may be transferrable and appropriate in multiple contexts and
programs, but some may not be. Caution also need be taken in relation to the timeliness of the
research; tertiary education methods, practices, and expectations are not static; they change with
technology, research, and different cohorts. These factors may cause different language
competencies and skills to be ranked differently across countries, institutions, or faculties.
Conclusion
This paper has detailed the Target Situation Analysis completed by one college’s EGAP faculty.
The findings in each skill area have informed our curricula, pedagogy, and assessments to the
benefit of our students. The changes are too new to allow for empirical data on student and faculty
perceptions, nor student performance in the target situations. However, anecdotal data has been
very positive from a variety of stakeholders, and we believe our program better serves our
increasing number of learners across increasing academic fields of study. Since the curricular
review, the university, with which we have an articulation agreement, has added several Graduate
programs that accept successful completion of Level 10 (80%) as demonstration of English
language proficiency. Hopefully, this study will assist EFL/EGAP programs’ curricular reviews to
the benefit of students wishing to study in the North American Academy. The tertiary-level
academic expectations and practices in North America should not be valued higher than those in
any other context (Benesch, 2001), but EFL students who wish to attend postsecondary institutions
in North America must be aware of, and able to use language within, the parameters and
expectations of the academy to succeed.

Acknowledgements
Thank you to Whitney Hoth for the managerial support that made this study possible; to my CD

63
team members Corinne Marshall, Kristibeth Kelly, Hongfang Yu, Bernadette Pitt, Rita Terron, and
Janice Craik, and to Khaled Barkaoui for his guidance, feedback, and suggestions on all things
theoretical. An earlier version of this paper was presented at TESOL Asia’s International
Conference on ESP, new technologies, and digital learning at the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University.

References
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing Reading. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J.C. & Banerjee, J. (2002). Language testing and assessment (part 2). Language
Teaching, 35, 79-113.
Atai, M.R., & Nazari, O. (2011). Exploring reading comprehension needs of Iranian EAP
students of health information management (HIM): A triangulated approach. System,
39, 30-43.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: OUP.
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: OUP.
Banerjee, J., & Wall, D. (2006). Assessing and reporting performances on pre-sessional EAP
courses: Developing a final assessment checklist and investigating its validity. Journal
of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 50-69.
Belcher, D. D. (2006). English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and imagined
futures in worlds of work, study, and everyday life. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 133-156.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: theory, politics, and practice.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2016). Needs Analysis. In Hyland, K. & Shaw, P. (Eds.), The Routledge
Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. Electronic version. Routledge.
Bosley, L. (2008). “I don`t teach reading”: Critical reading instruction in composition courses.
Literacy Research and Instruction, 47, 285-308.
Brinton, D.M., Snow, M.A., & Wesche, M. (2003). Content-based Second language Instruction
(Classics Ed.) MI: University of Michigan Press.
Bruce, I. (2011). Theory and concepts of English for Academic Purposes. New York, NY:

64
 Palgrave Macmillan.
Cabinda, M. (2013). The need for a needs analysis at UEM: Aspects of and attitudes towards
change. Linguistics and Education, 24(4), 415-427.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In
J.C Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication, (pp. 2-27). Harlow,
UK: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A
pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied
Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, L. (2013). Needs analysis and curriculum development in ESP. In B. Paltridge &
S. Starfield (Eds.), The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes (325-346). West
Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2009). Test architecture, test retrofit. Language Testing, 26(1),
123-144.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment: An advanced resource
book. New York, NY: Routledge.
Green, B.A., & Andrade, M.S. (2010). Guiding principles for language assessment reform: A
model for collaboration. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 322-334.
Huang, L-S. (2010). See eye to eye? The academic writing needs of graduate and undergraduate
students from students’ and instructors’ perspectives. Language Teaching Research,
14(4), 517-539.
Hudson, T. (2005). Trends in assessment scales and criterion-referenced language assessment.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 205-227.
Hyland, K. (2016). General and Specific EAP. In Hyland, K. & Shaw, P. (Eds.), The Routledge
Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. Electronic version. Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for Academic Purposes. New York, NY: Routledge
Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 1, 1-12.

65
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an “academic vocabulary”? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2),
235- 253.
Johns, A.M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing Academic Literacies. Cambridge: CUP.
Kern, R. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 16, 441-461.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. New York: CUP.
Laversuch, I.M. (2008). Putting Germany’s language tests to the test: An examination of the
development, implementation, and efficacy of using language proficiency tests to
mediate German citizenship. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9(3), 282 – 298.
Liu, J. Y., Chang, Y. J., Yang, F. Y., & Sun, Y. C. (2011). Is what I need what I want?
Reconceptualising college students’ needs in English courses for general and
specific/academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 271-
280.
Meyer Sterzik, A. (2017). Going beyond the text: The inferencing processes of skilled readers
in L1 & L2 across reading tasks (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). York University,
Toronto, Canada.
Meyer Sterzik, A. & Fraser, C. (2012). RC-MAPS: Bridging the comprehension gap in EAP
reading. TESL Canada Journal, 29 (2), 103-119.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Pawlikowska-Smith, G. (2002). Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000: Theoretical
framework. Ottawa: Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks.
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22-37.
Poehner, M. E. (2011). Validity and interaction in the ZPD: Interpreting learner development
through L2 dynamic assessment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(2),
244-263.
Richardson, J. (1995). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher education: A
comparative investigation using the approaches to studying inventory. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 55, 300-308.
Rosenfeld, M., Leung, S., & Oltman, P.K. (2001). The reading, writing, speaking, and listening

66
 tasks important for academic success at the undergraduate and graduate levels
(TOEFL Monograph Series Report No. 21). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
Shohamy, E. (2008). Overview: Language policy and language assessment: The relationship.
Current Issues in language Planning, 9(3), 363 – 373.
Simner, M., & Mitchell, J., B. (2007). Validation of the TOEFL as a Canadian University
Admissions Requirement. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 22(2), 182-190.
Stewart, G. (2005). Issues in task-based assessment of communicative competence. Contact:
Special Research Symposium Issue, 31(2), 29-44.
Steger, M.B. (2003). Globalization: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Spaan, M. (2006). Test and item specifications development. Language Assessment Quarterly,
3 (1), 71-79.
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far
should we go? TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 29-52.
Taillefer, G.E. (2005). Reading for academic purposes: The literacy practices of British, French,
and Spanish law and economics students as background for study abroad. Journal of
Research in Reading, 4, 435-451.
Taylor, L., & Geranpayeh, A. (2011). Assessing listening for academic purposes: Defining and
operationalising the test construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 89-
101.
Upton, T. A. (2012). LSP at 50: Looking back, looking forward. Ibérica, 23, 9-28.
Wu, W.M., & Stansfield, C.W. (2001). Towards authenticity of task in test development.
Language Testing, 18(2), 187-206.
Zheng, Y., & De Jong, J.H.A.L. (2011). Establishing construct and concurrent validity of
Pearson Test of English Academic. London, UK: Pearson.

67
Appendix A: Survey

Your institution: _______________________________________

Your program: _______________________________________
Your name: _______________________________________
Your position: _______________________________________

We would like to gauge the population and performance levels of students in your classes who are non-native
speakers of English. Please provide some basic information about numbers of non-native speakers and about their
achievement in your courses.

Approximately how many non-native speakers of English do you have enrolled in your classes each
term? (Please provide an approximate number)
Approximately what percentage of the students in your classes would you estimate to be non-
native speakers? (Please provide an approximate percentage)
Have you noticed an overall difference in levels of performance between native and non-native Y / N
speakers who are students in your courses?
What percentage of the non-native speakers in your classes do you estimate have been able to
complete your courses successfully? (Please provide an approximate percentage)

We would like to ensure that our upper level English for academic purposes (EAP) curricula provide graduating
students with the skills that receiving institutions consider important for success. As a result, we would like you to
consider the questions below as they might pertain to any first-year student, and not just for non-native speakers.
Please evaluate how important the following language competencies are to the success of postsecondary students:

n/a = not applicable; 1 = not at all important; 2 = not especially important; 3 = somewhat important;
4 = rather important; 5 = very important; 6 = crucially important

LISTENING/SPEAKING COMPETENCIES:
Asking questions in classes or tutorial sessions 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Answering questions in classes or tutorial sessions 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Making presentations in classes or tutorial sessions 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Understanding oral instructions in classes or tutorial sessions 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Engaging confidently in group work in classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
or tutorial sessions
Engaging confidently in group work to complete 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
assignments outside of class
Conversing casually in class 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Understanding slang/idiomatic English 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Asking for extra help, clarification or explanations 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
outside of class
Understanding at least 80% of material delivered in lectures 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
without any visual reinforcement
Understanding at least 80% of material delivered in lectures 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
with visual reinforcement
Distinguishing between key points and digressions 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
or less pertinent information in a lecture
Taking lecture notes that capture key points 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a

Can you identify other listening/speaking competencies and their levels of importance?

68
READING COMPETENCIES:
Reading course materials and discipline-related journal articles
with at least 80% comprehension 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Keeping up with the volume of required textbook readings 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Reading assignment / project information accurately 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Reading without any translating into first language 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Using an English dictionary effectively 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Understanding discipline-specific meanings of vocabulary 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Distinguishing between fact and opinion when reading 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Evaluating sources when researching and reading 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Skimming texts for an overview and scanning for specific information 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a

Can you identify other reading competencies and their levels of importance?

WRITING COMPETENCIES:
Writing summaries of text chapters, presentations, journal articles, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Synthesising material from different sources that express competing
viewpoints or areas of emphasis 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Writing memos, business letters 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Writing a critical review of a book or journal article 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Writing short answers on tests and exams 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Writing an essay exam (i.e. writing under a time constraint,
without access to dictionaries or other reference materials) 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Writing essays:
summary essays 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
chronological essays 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
critical analysis essays 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
compare / contrast essays 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
classification essays 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
cause and effect essays 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
persuasive essays 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Researching and writing a short (800-1250 word) essay 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Researching and writing a longer (1500-3000 word) essay 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Knowing and using MLA formatting 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Knowing and using APA formatting 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Accurately paraphrasing the ideas of others 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Communicating effectively in writing with the professor
when necessary (i.e. via e-mails or letters) 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Producing written work that demonstrates an ability to proofread,
revise, and edit to an acceptable standard 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a
Successfully incorporating prior feedback when submitting
new written work 1 2 3 4 5 6 n/a

Can you identify other writing competencies and their levels of importance?

Are there any strengths that you have come to associate with non-native speakers’ performance in your courses?
Please explain in the space provided.

Are there any weaknesses that you have come to associate with non-native speakers’ performance in your courses?
Please explain in the space provided.

Do you ever provide special consideration or accommodations to non-native speakers so that they can experience
success in your classroom? If so, how?

Do you have any other comments you would like to make about non-native speakers in your institution and their
language competencies?

69
The Impact of Pre-listening Activities on Iranian EFL Learners’ Listening Comprehension
Performance

Fatemeh Karimi, Ph.D. Candidate

Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Fatinaz.karimi@yahoo.com
Azizeh Chalak*, Assistant Professor
Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Azizeh_chalak@yahoo.com
Reza Biria, Associate Professor
Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
R_biria@yahoo.com
*Corresponding Author

Abstract
Pre-listening activities refer to the tasks to be done before the learners go to the while listening
stage. The aims of these activities are to prepare the learners to achieve the most of what they will
hear. By TOFEL (PBT) test, 180 learners – both male and female - were selected for this study.
They were studying English at a private language institute. The learners were classified into two
proficiency levels: intermediate and upper-intermediate learners. In each level, 90 subjects were
randomly assigned to two experimental and one control groups each consisting of 30 learners.
After performing the pre-test, vocabulary preparation and content related support were given to
experimental groups. The learners in control groups received filler activities. At end of the
experiment, the post tests were performed to all learners to measure the effect of the treatment.
The finding revealed the great effect of pre-listening activities on listening comprehension
performance of Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension performance.

Keywords: Bottom-up, Content related support, Listening comprehension, Pre-listening activity,

70
Top-down, Vocabulary preparation.

1. INTRODUCTION
Listening is the key initial step in communication. Effective communication therefore necessitates
that learners develop the listening skill. Mendelsohn (1994) believes that since listening form up
to 50% of communication time, the crucial role of listening in learning and teaching language
cannot be overlooked. Yet, listening is the least understood, the least researched and historically
the least valued skill (Wilson, 2008). Many students experience difficulties in listening to the
foreign language. Underwood (1989) believes that it would not be fair to draw students straight
into the listening without introducing the topic or the type of activity they are going to work on.
Therefore, “preparatory work” (Underwood, 1989, p.31) or pre-listening activity which enables
the learners to deal with the following listening text strategically, is very important. In this stage,
the learners are prepared to achieve the most from the passage. Pre-listening activities can be
generally classified into two types: bottom-up and top-down. While there are many bottom-up and
top-down activities, the present study sheds light on the effects of vocabulary preparation as
bottom-up pre-listening and content related support as top-down pre-listening activities on
listening comprehension performance of Iranian intermediate and upper – intermediate EFL
learners. This study tried to determine the extent to which vocabulary preparation and content
related support can help Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension performance.
Schema theory constituted the theoretical base of this research. The term schema was coined by
psychologist Bartlett (1932). A schema is the organized knowledge that one has about people,
places, things, events and even for how text’s work. Schema can be divided into linguistic schema
and content schema. According to Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) linguistic schema is the listener’s
existing linguistic knowledge. In other words, linguistic schema contains language information in
the materials, which played a basic part in a comprehensive understanding of the context. Content
schema also known as topic schema refers to people’s background information on the topic and
provides a basis for comprehension (Carrell, 1983). Activating rerated schemata, enables the
people to process and comprehend new experiences more efficiently (Richards & Schmidt, 2010).
These two kinds of schema in listening comprehension can be characterized by bottom-up and top-
down processing. Bottom-up processing is activated by the new incoming data. This process is
associated with the listeners’ linguistic knowledge. Top-down processing, however, makes use of

71
previous knowledge to anticipate and comprehend the incoming information. Therefore, it is
crucial for listeners to learn how to implement these simultaneous and complementary processes
effectively for different listening aims. Pre-listening activities, conducted before actual listening,
activate the appropriate schemata and hence, facilitate the learners listening comprehension.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
Classroom is the only place that EFL learners are exposed to their foreign language. In case of
listening comprehension, the minimal class time is often given to listening practice. This condition
affects EFL learners and may result in inefficient listening comprehension. A potential remedy to
the above drawback can be the improving of classroom instruction by providing pre-listening
activities that prepare learners to get the most from the while-listening stage. Taking into
consideration the shortcomings of EFL classes, this study investigated the effectiveness of pre-
listening activities on Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension performance.
1.2 Research Questions
The current research was designed to measure the extent to which vocabulary preparation and
content related support as two types of pre-listening activities can affect and improve the listening
comprehension performance of Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension performance. The
following questions were designed to ach
In order to achieve the goals of the study, this research addressed the following questions:

1. Is there any significant difference between the effect of vocabulary preparation and content-
related support on the listening comprehension performance of Iranian intermediate EFL learners?
2. Is there any significant difference between the effect of vocabulary preparation and content-
related support on the listening comprehension performance of Iranian upper-intermediate EFL
learners?

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The role of pre-listening activity in listening instruction has long been attracted and discussed by
the researchers. Chastain (1988) has argued that pre-listening activities can be considered as the
most crucial aspect in listening process because other activities depend on the extent to which the
teacher has been successful in activating students’ background and directing them to reach the
goals of activity. Richard and Burns (2012) believe that these activities aim to activate relevant

72
schema, providing key words and finally motivate learners. Ur (1996) offers giving learners
relevant prior information before actual listening takes place. Brown (2006) also recommends
teachers apply pre-listening activities in their listening class. White (1995) claims that the goal of
pre-listening stage is to providing any information needed to help learners to comprehend the text,
setting and the role relationship among participants.
There are two types of pre-listening activities: bottom-up and top-down. Bottom-up pre-listening
activities refer to pre-teaching vocabularies and grammars that are important to listening. On the
other hand, top-down pre-listening activities refer to activating the relevant prior knowledge. A
number of studies examined and compared the efficiency of various forms of pre-listening
activities on listening comprehension performance of the learners.
Long (1990) studied the efficiency of background knowledge on the performance of language
learners. The results of his study revealed that students generally perform better on the listening
passages with more background knowledge. However, according to his suggestion, schemata, if
not applied appropriately, can have inefficient function. Chiang and Dunkle (1992) examined the
effect of speech modification, prior knowledge, and listening proficiency on EFL learners’
listening comprehension. The results showed that topic familiarity was the most effective activity.
Schmidt-Rinehart (1994) conducted a research to examine whether there was an interaction
between topic familiarity and listening comprehension. The result showed that all of the students
in different levels performed better in listening task with familiar topic. The result of Berne’s (1995)
investigation on the effects of bottom-up and top-down pre-listening activities on listening
comprehension performance of learners revealed that vocabulary pre-teaching was less effective
than other forms of listening support. The importance of bottom-up activities was confirmed by
Tsui and Fullilove’s (1998) study. They suggested that the lack of bottom-up skills are more
important than top-down for comprehension. In Herron et al. (1998) study, no significant
difference was found between students with receiving two types of advance organizers in two
experimental groups. The research of Chung and Huang (1998) about the effect of vocabulary
instruction, advanced organizer and “combined condition” on listening comprehension
performance of the learners, indicated that the combined group was more effective than vocabulary
instruction and advance organizer group. Keshvarz and Babai (2001) could prove the importance
of linguistic knowledge and bottom-up skills. They showed that providing relevant background
knowledge didn’t have significant effect on listening comprehension performance of both high and

73
low level language learners. Therefore, they questioned the overestimation of the importance of
the background knowledge. Sadeghi and Zare (2002), studied the impact of background
knowledge on listening. EFL learners from two TOEFL preparation classes participated in this
research. The results showed the significant effect of prior knowledge on listening comprehension.
According to Chang and Read’s (2006) investigation, providing general information about the
topic of the listening was more efficient than the other kinds of pre-listening. They found that
higher level language learners benefited less than lower level language learners from topic related
information. They conducted another study in 2007 to examine the impact of different kinds of
pre-listening on lower level language learners. They came to conclusion that different types of pre-
listening activities may increase the level of comprehension but to a certain degree. The effect of
schema activation by providing relevant background knowledge was investigated by Jia (2010).
The finding confirmed the positive role of schema activation on comprehension of the learners.
Hayati and Dastjerdi (2012) investigated the effect of cultural familiarity on listening
comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. The results of their research indicated that greater
familiarity with culturally-oriented listening material would improve Iranian EFL listening
comprehension. Farrokhi and Modarres (2012) attempted to examine the importance of glossary
of unknown vocabulary items and content related support on Iranian low and high proficient EFL
language learners’ listening comprehension performance. The statistical analysis of the data
revealed that glossary of unknown vocabulary items was beneficial for low proficient learners and
on the other hand content related support significant impact on high proficient learners. They
suggested that in designing the pre-listening activities the type of activity need to be in accordance
with the level of the learners. Pan (2012) studied the impact of multi-faceted lexical instruction on
the TOEIC aural performance of Taiwanese EFL learners. The findings of this research clearly
showed that this pre-activity improved the aural performance of Taiwanese learners. Rameshianfar
et al. (2015), studied the effect of vocabulary instruction on intermediate EFL learners’ listening
comprehension. The finding showed that vocabulary instruction could not affect the listening
comprehension performance of learners significantly.
As literature reveals, there are controversial results about the effectiveness of various kinds of pre-
listening activities. In other words, it remains unclear whether different types of pre-listening are
efficient on improving listening comprehension of the learners or not. This research was conducted
to provide more precise information regarding the efficiency of vocabulary preparation and content

74
related support on listening comprehension achievement of Iranian EFL learners.

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Subjects
The subjects of this study were 180 EFL learners – male and female – studying English at a private
language institute. They were chosen out of 305 EFL learners by taking the TOFEL (PBT) test.
Based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), 90 learners
scored between 437-510 were chosen as intermediate learners (B2), and 90 learners who scored
between 513-547 were chosen as upper-intermediate ones (B2). Then, for each proficiency level,
the learners were randomly assigned to two experimental and one control groups. Each group
consisted of 30 learners. They were 92 male and 88 female. Their age varied from 15 to 21 years
old for intermediate learners and from 18 to 24 years old for upper-intermediate learners. Because
of Their age variance they had different educational background.
3.2 Materials
Developing and Expanding Tactics for listening (Richards, 2010) were chosen for this study. They
were used based on the proficiency level of the learners. 12 units of each book were taught as
listening materials. These series are widely used and appreciated by Iranian universities’ teachers.
But, according to the authorities of the private language institute chosen for this study, these books
were not taught in their different English language courses. Therefore, the participants had little
chance to work on these books before.
3.3 Instruments
TOFEL (PBT) test was used in order to select appropriate learners for each level. In order to
interpret the obtained scores, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR) was used. Before studying the experiment, the learners in both levels received pre-test. It
was used to measure the potential pre-existing differences among learners’ listening
comprehension. After taking the pre-test, the learners in experimental groups received their own
specific treatment. At the end of the experiment, post test was given to all learners. It was
conducted to measure the amount of progress.
3.4 Treatment
Among the various available forms of pre-listening, this study focused on vocabulary preparation
and content related support. A pilot study was conducted to decide about the unfamiliar words to

75
be presented in the vocabulary preparation stage. The transcription of listening audios was given
to 15 randomly learners of each proficiency level. The learners were asked to read the passage
quickly and underline the unknown words. Based on the underlined words, a word list was
provided for each unit. Based on the provided word lists the researcher selected those words that
deserved vocabulary instruction. Seven to ten words of each unit were chosen for instruction at
pre-listening stage. Along with these words, some sentences in the form of single-slot deletion
were designed and the learners were asked to complete these sentences with the same target words.
This activity helped learners to use the new words in context and enhance the learners’ world
knowledge. The researcher assigned 15 minutes for vocabulary preparation stage.
In order to provide the content related support, five to eight declarative sentences based on the
topics were designed. The number of the sentences was dependent on the amount of factual
information presented in each unit. They were designed to explain the major events rather than the
details. The sentences were intended to provide the general information about the topic and activate
the learners’ relevant schema. In order to help learners to process sentences more deeply, they were
constructed in true/false format (Herron et al., 1998). The learners were asked to read the sentences
and judge their truth. During the 15 minutes, assigned by the researcher for this stage, the learners
were asked to discuss the true/false content related sentences. When students were reluctant about
discussion, the teacher by asking some question encouraged them to begin the discussion. In order
to provide the similar listening sessions during the experiment, the ratio of true and false sentences
were similar for all units.
3.5 Data Collection Procedures
By giving the TOFEL (PBT), the appropriate learners were chosen for intermediate and upper-
intermediate levels. Then, they were randomly assigned to two experimental and one control
groups of 30 in each level of proficiency. After that, pre-tests were used to measure the pre-existing
listening knowledge of the intermediate and upper-intermediate learners.
The experiment was started by explaining the procedure for the participants. One experimental
group in each level of proficiency received vocabulary preparation. Cooper’s (1997) steps (in
Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts, 2002) was applied for vocabulary instruction.
According to these steps, the teacher taught Word’s characteristics (prefix, suffix, and root),
Synonym, Antonym, Category it belongs to (what class or group the word belongs to), meaning,
and its use in context. After spending approximately 15 minutes on this type of pre-listening

76
activity, the researcher started teaching listening.
The other experimental group in each level of proficiency received content related support as pre-
listening activity. The learners were asked to read some statements about the major events occurred
in the unit and discuss them. The aim of these statements in true/false format was to activate the
learners’ relevant background knowledge. It approximately took about 15 minutes.
After performing the pre-listening activities in experimental groups, while listening stage began
and the learners listened to the main listening text and answered the questions. ‘Tactics for listening’
(Richards, 2010) series (developing, and expanding) were used for this study. 12 units of each
book were taught. In control group, the learners did not receive any pre-listening activity. They
were asked to listen to the text and answer the questions. This method of teaching listening has
been widely used by Iranian teachers. The research conducted over the course of 6 weeks. At the
end of the experiment, post tests were given to the learners. The post tests were used to measure
the efficiency of two types of pre-listening activities. The post test in each level was the same with
the pre-test one. The tests were designed by Jack C. Richards for his ‘Tactics for listening’ series.
In each book, for each four units, there was one specific test completely reflecting the contents of
those units. Therefore, tests had high content and construct validity. The dichotomous scoring
method was used for both pre and post-tests. In other words, the correct response received one and
the incorrect one received none. The maximum score for each test was 40 for forty items.
3.6 Data Analysis Procedures
SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) was used to perform all statistical analyses. To
examine the research question, separate one-way ANOVA was conducted to investigate the
possible differences of learners’ listening comprehension performance within and among groups.

77
4. RESULTS
4.1 Descriptive data of the learners
The descriptive data of intermediate and upper-intermediate learners are presented in Table 1 and
2.
Table (1) Descriptive Statistics for Intermediate Learners
Pre-test Post-test

Variable Group N Mean Std Min Max Mean Std Min Max
Deviation Deviation

LC VP 30 25.30 3.505 18 34 28.90 4.229 21 37

CRS 30 25.60 4.149 17 32 31.80 4.773 21 38
CG 30 25.33 3.367 19 31 27.43 3.441 21 34

Table (2) Descriptive Statistics for Upper-intermediate Learners

Pre-test Post-test

Variable Group N Mean Std Min Max Mean Std Min Max
Deviation Deviation

VC 30 29.97 3.011 24 36 31.97 2.684 28 37

LC CRS 30 29.53 2.460 25 34 33.97 2.282 28 37
CG 30 29.50 2.623 25 35 31.80 2.497 28 36

4.2 Inferential Analysis of the Data

4.2.1 Research Question1
After meeting the pre-requisite assumptions for analysis of variance, one - way ANOVA was
carried out on the dependent variable: listening comprehension scores. The results of ANOVA
revealed that there was no significant difference among the pre-test scores of intermediate learners.

78
 Table (3) One-way ANOVA Results for Pre-test Scores of Intermediate Learners
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1.622 2 .811 .060 .942

Within Groups 1184.167 87 13.611
Total 1185.789 89

In order to investigate the possible effects of treatments, an analysis of variance was conducted on
post test scores of intermediate learners.
Table (4) One-way ANOVA Results for the Post-test Scores of Intermediate Learners
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 269.289 2 148.144 8.463 .000

Within Groups 1522.867 87 17.504
Total 1819.156 89

As can be seen in Table 4, the f-value is 8.463 and its corresponding Sig value is .000. Given that
the Sig value is smaller than .05, the existence of significant differences among post-test scores of
three mentioned groups is proved. However, the above Table does not represent which group is
different from the other group. The post-hoc Tukey tests can be used for pair comparison of groups.

Table (5) Post-hoc Tukey Tests for Post-test Scores of Intermediate Learners
(I) Group (J) Group Mean Std. Sig.
Difference (I-J) Error

Vocabulary Preparation Content Related Support -2.900* 1.080 .023

Control Group 1.467 1.080 .368
Content Related Vocabulary Preparation 2.900* 1.080 .023
Support Control Group 4.367* 1.080 .000
Control Group Vocabulary Preparation -1.467 1.080 .368
Content Related Support -4.367* 1.080 .000

79
As Table 5 represents, the pair comparison of groups using the Tukey test, revealed that there was
a significant difference between the mean scores of two experimental groups. In fact, the mean
score of the content related support group was significantly higher than the mean score of the
vocabulary preparation group. The mean value of the content related support group had also
meaningful difference with that of control group. However, there was a difference between the
mean score of the vocabulary preparation group and that of the control group, this difference was
not meaningful.
4.2.2 Research Question 2
The results of the one-way ANOVA for the pre-test are presented in Table 6.

Table (6) One-way ANOVA Results for the Pre-test Scores of Upper-intermediate Learners
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 4.067 2 2.033 .277 .758

Within Groups 637.933 87 7.333
Total 642.000 89

As Table 6 shows there was no significant difference among the three groups (the Sig value of
0.758 was greater than 0.05). In the following, the ANOVA result of the post-test scores are
demonstrated.

Table (7) ANOVA Results for the Post-test Scores of Upper-intermediate Learners
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 87.222 2 43.611 7.017 .001

Within Groups 540.733 87 6.215
Total 627.956 89

As can be seen in the above Table, the F-value of 7.017 and its corresponding significance value
(Sig) of .001, (P<.05) proved the existence of significant difference among groups. Since Table 7
does not represent which group is different from the other group, the post-hoc Tukey tests were
conducted to determine the place of difference.

80
 Table (8) Post-hoc Tukey Tests for Post-test Scores of Upper-intermediate Learners
(I) Group (J) Group Mean Std. Sig.
Difference (I-J) Error

Vocabulary Preparation Content Related Support -2.000* .644 .007

Control Group .167 .644 .964
Content related Support Vocabulary Preparation 2.000* .644 .007
Control Group 2.167* .644 .003
Control Group Vocabulary Preparation -.167 .644 .964
Content Related Support -2.167* .644 .003
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

The results of post-hoc Tukey test indicated that there was a significant difference between the
mean scores of two experimental groups. The learners in the content related support group
significantly outperformed the learners in the vocabulary preparation group. In addition, there was
a significant difference between the content related support group and the control group. However,
there was no meaningful difference between the control group and the vocabulary preparation
group.

5. DISCUSSION
Based on the analyses of the collected data, pre-listening activities improved the listening
comprehension performance of Iranian EFL learners significantly. Exposing the intermediate
learners to vocabulary preparation and content related support, the effectiveness of the role of the
content related support in enhancing the learners’ listening comprehension performance was
approved. The post test outcomes conceived that there existed a considerable increase in the
learners’ performance in their listening comprehension in content related support group. But, at
the same time, there was no significant difference between the learners’ performance in vocabulary
preparation pre-listening group and the learners’ performance in control group. It proved that only
the content related support pre-listening activity was efficient on listening comprehension
performance of intermediate learners.
The researcher also tried to investigate the possible effect of pre-listening activities on the Iranian

81
upper-intermediate EFL learners. The findings revealed that the content related support was more
effective than vocabulary preparation on the improvement of the learners’ listening comprehension.
The results of the current research showed that only the content related support pre-listening was
effective in improving the listening comprehension performance of Iranian EFL learners. These
findings can be explained by the schema theory which directed this research. Providing the relevant
schema concerning the actual listening content was significantly influential. In fact, the content
related support provided the listeners with background knowledge about the topic of the listening
content. This pre-listening was presented in the form of true/false sentences. Such true/false mode
involves learners in hypothesis testing (Anderson, 1985) and pushes them to deeper processing
(Herron et al., 1998). The learners try to test their self-formulated hypotheses and reformulate them.
Therefore, content related support pre-listening activated the relevant knowledge of the learners
and helped them to connect the new materials to their existing knowledge. It provided the basis
for comprehension (Mendelsohn, 1995). The significance of schema activation for EFL learners
becomes more apparent when we know this fact that usually there are mismatches between the
speaker’s schema and listener’s schema in foreign language situation that leads to
misunderstanding.
Many other studies were also conducted to examine the efficiency of background knowledge as a
pre-listening activity. While the results of some studies were in line with the present research and
highlighted the positive role of this pre-listening, some others delimited the role of the content
related support. Balaban (2016), Bao (2016), Hui (2010), and Hoang Mai (2014), claimed that
content related support, as a pre-listening activity, encouraged the learners to select the information
more properly. The results of Farrokhi and Modarres’s (2012) study also indicated that content
related support could enhance the high proficient learners’ listening comprehension. Emami and
Lashkarian’s (2014) findings also confirmed efficient impact of the activation of the relevant prior
knowledge before actual listening practice. These findings are in sharp contrast with Jensen and
Hansen’s (1995) results. In their study, the activation of background knowledge did not have
significant effect on listening comprehension performance of the proficient learners. Some other
studies also delimited the efficiency of prior knowledge activation (Chang & Read, 2007; Herron
et al., 1998).
Although, the findings of this research showed that the vocabulary preparation groups did not have
significant difference with the control groups at both intermediate and upper-intermediate levels,

82
its value cannot overlooked. Because, the analyses of the data revealed that at both levels of
proficiency, the learners in vocabulary preparation groups outperformed those in control groups
received no pre-listening support. Therefore, it was proved that the vocabulary preparation pre-
listening activity could improve the listening comprehension performance of the learners but not
significantly. The results of the studies on the efficiency of vocabulary preparation as a pre-
listening activity do not seem to be congruent.
The positive correlation of word knowledge and listening comprehension performance of the
learners were approved in some studies (Bonk, 2000; Chunge & Huang,1998; Sun, 2002). Jafari
and Hashim’s (2010) research findings also confirmed the positive effect of pre-instruction of key
vocabularies based on the learners levels. Farrokhi and Modarres’s (2012) research had the same
result. They found that focusing on unknown vocabularies as pre-listening task, enhanced the
listening comprehension performance of the elementary learners. Some other studies, on the other
hand, disapproved the efficiency of vocabulary preparation (Berne, 1995; Ehsanjou & Khodareza,
2014; Hui, 2010).
Generally, as literature revealed, most studies confirmed the significant role of pre-listening
activities on listening comprehension performance of the learners. Therefore, pre-listening
activities like the content-related support which activate the relevant schema should be an integral
part of teaching listening for EFL learners.

6. CONCLUSION
The fundamental aim of pre-listening is to prepare learners to behave better in while listening. The
type of pre-listening is not fixed and it usually depends on the teachers’ aim and the learners’
language level.
This research investigated the effects of vocabulary preparation and content related support as two
kinds of pre-listening activities on the improvement of listening comprehension performance of
Iranian EFL learners. According to the findings of this research, exposing EFL learners to the pre-
listening activities leads to better listening comprehension performance. The results proved that
both vocabulary preparation and content related support were effective in improving the listening
comprehension performance of Iranian intermediate and upper-intermediate EFL learners.
However, the impact of vocabulary preparation on intermediate and upper intermediate learners
was not significant; it could improve the learners’ listening comprehension performance in

83
comparison with the learners in control group.
Although, there is no general consensus about the positive role of one specific form of pre-listening
activity, applying the pre-listening activities for teaching listening can optimize the efficiency of
teaching. As a result, the essentiality of pre-listening stage in time prior to the actual listening is
undoubted and it seems that it is worthwhile to spend much time and energy on this stage.

REFERENCES
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. Applied Linguistics, 7, 257-
274.
Balaban, S. (2016). The effect of summarization as a pre-listening technique at university
preparatory classes. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 126-133.
Bao, X. (2016). A study on schema theory-based listening teaching mode for English majors.
International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(4), 207-212.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Berne, J. E. (1995). How does varying pre-listening activities after second language listening
comprehension? Hispania, 78, 316-319.
Bonk, W. J. (2000). Second language lexical knowledge and listening comprehension.
International Journal of Listening, 14, 14-31.
Brown, S. (2006). Teaching listening. Cambridge University Press.
Carrel, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL
Quarterly, 17(4), 553-573.
Carrell, P.L. (1983). Some issues in Studying the role of schemata, or background Knowledge in
Second language Comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 1, 81-92.
Chang, A. C., & Read J. (2007). Support for foreign language listeners: Its effectiveness and
limitations. RELC, 38(3), 375- 95.
Chang, A. C-S. & Read, J. (2006). The effects of listening support on the listening performance of
EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 375-397.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: theory to practice. U.S.A.: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Chiang, C. S., & Dunkel, P. (1992). The effect of speech modification, prior knowledge, and

84
 linguistic proficiency on EFL lecture learning. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 345-374.
Chung, J. M. & Huang, S. C. (1998). The effects of three aural advance organizers for video
viewing in a foreign language classroom. System, 26, 553-565.
Ehsanjou, M., & Khodareza, M. (2014). The impact of using different forms of pre-listening on
Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension. ELT Voices, 4(6), 1-10.
Emami, R. & Lashkarian, A. (2014). The effect of pre-reading activity on the listening
comprehension of intermediate learners. International Journal of Education and Research,
2/8, 111-122.
Farrokhi, F. & Modarres, V. (2012). The effects of two pre-task activities on improvement of
Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
2(1), 144-150.
Hayati, S. & Dastjerdi, H. (2012). The relationship between prior knowledge and EFL learners'
listening comprehension: Cultural knowledge in focus. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences, 3(1), 122-143.
Herron, C., Cole, H. & Linden, p. (1998). A comparison study of student retention of foreign
language video: Declarative versus interrogative advance organizer. The Modern Language
Journal,82(2), 237-247.
Hoang Mai, L., Ngoc, L. & Thao, V. (2014). Enhancing listening performance through schema
construction activities. Journal of language teaching and research, 5(5), 1042-1051.
Hui, S. (2010). The effects of pre-listening vocabulary instruction and background knowledge
input on non-English majors’ EFL listening comprehension. Retrieved March 4, 2017 from
http://www.p-papers.com/44509.html.
Jafari, K., & Hashim, F. (2012). The effects of using advance organizers on improving EFL learners’
listening comprehension: A mixed method study. System, 40 (2), 270-281.
Jensen, C., & Hansen, C. (1995). The effect of prior knowledge on EAP listening-test performance.
Language Testing. 12 (1), 99-119.
Jia, L. (2010). How word recognition is affected by schema activation: An investigation through
listening. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 64-76.
Keshavarz, M. H., & Babai, E. (2001). Incompatibility of schema with input in listening
comprehension. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27 (1), 57-83.
Long, D. (1990). What you don’t know can’t help you: An exploratory study of background

85
 knowledge and second language listening comprehension. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 12, 65-80.
Mendelsohn, D. J. (1994). Learning to listen: A strategy-based approach for the secondlanguage
learner. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
Pan, Y. C. (2012). Effects of multi-faceted lexical instruction on the TOEIC listening performance
of Taiwanese EFL college students. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2, 71-79.
Rameshianfar, A., Shahnazari, M. T. & Tavakoli, M. (2015). The effect of two pre-listening
vocabulary and enhanced content-related supports on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’
listening comprehension sub-skills. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Resaerch,
2(8), 284-302.
Richards, J. C., & Burns, A. (2012). Tips for teaching listening: A practical approach. USA:
Pearson Education.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics.
London: Pearson Edition.
Richards, J. C. (2010). Basic tactics for listening (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2010). Developing tactics for listening (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2010). Expanding tactics for listening (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Sadighi, F. and Zare, S. (2002). Is listening comprehension influenced by the background
knowledge of the learners? A case study of Iranian EFL learners. The linguistics Journal,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 110-126.
Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C. (1994). The effects of topic familiarity on second language listening
comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 179-189.
Sun, K. C. (2002).Investigation of English listening difficulties of Taiwan students. Paper presented
at the 11th
international symposium of English teaching, Fourth Pan- Asian conference.
Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts (2002). Teacher Reading Academy. Austin, TX:
University of Texas.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2
listening performance. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 432-451.
Underwood, M. (1989). Teaching listening. Hong Kong: Longman.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge

86
 University Press.
Wilson, J. J. (2008). How to teach listening. Harlow: Pearson Education.
White, G. (1998). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

87
The Effects of ASEAN English Accents on Listening Comprehension and Attitudes of Thai
Students: The Phenomenon of English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN

Wachirapong Yaemtui
Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand

Abstract
The widespread use of English as a Lingua Franca has increased the development of new varieties
of English usages and accents around the world, especially in a multicultural or international
community. As citizens of a member state of AEC, Thai students inevitably have to encounter
such varieties of non-native English accents. The emergence of ASEAN English accents, however,
has raised the questions regarding the effects of such accents on Thai students’ listening
comprehension and their attitudes towards these accents. To provide comprehensive answers to
these two questions, 180 participants were purposively selected and classified into Basic User,
Independent User, and Proficient User based on their English proficiency test scores. A listening
test with two audio recording (i.e. native English accents and ASEAN English accents) was
utilized to collect quantitative data about the participants’ listening comprehension of these distinct
accents. According to the listening scores of the participants, ASEAN English accents negatively
affect the intelligibility of the participants in all proficiency groups; while ASEAN English accents
only have a negative effect on the comprehensibility of Basic User(s), not Independent User(s) and
Proficient User(s). In addition to the effects of ASEAN English accents on listening
comprehension, all participants responded in the questionnaire statements regarding their attitudes
toward English accents that they preferred listening to native English accents over ASEAN English
accents; however, the value of learning ASEAN English accents is considered as an important goal
of language learning. The participants also indicated agreement with statements about the inclusion
of ASEAN English accents in listening courses and listening comprehension tests as an acceptable
goal.

Keywords: ASEAN English accents; English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) in ASEAN; listening
comprehension; language attitudes

88
1. Introduction

In recent years, English has been consistently earning a special function in the world as a Lingua
Franca (ELF) used as a means of communication mostly among non-native speakers who share
neither a common native tongue nor a common culture (Seidlhofer, 2011). With the widespread
use of English and its function as a lingua franca around the world, the number of non-native
English speakers has been continuously increasing. Along with this phenomenon, some non-native
varieties of English are gaining the status of recognized variants of English which have enhanced
the development of new varieties of English accents (Crystal, 2003; Jenkins, 2007; Jenkins, 2007;
Kirkpatrick, 2007; Sharifian, 2010). Inevitably, the emergence of English as a Lingua Franca has
also exerted a significant impact on Thai communities in many aspects due to the advent of the
ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in 2015 (Choomthong, 2014). This is because the AEC has
increased awareness in the use of English as a means of communication among the ten state
members of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) of which Thailand is a member
(Natiladdanon & Thanavisuth, 2014 According to the Proposals for the Second Decade of
Education Reform (2009-2018) provided by the Office of the Education Council, Ministry of
Education, English language ability is considered as one of the measurement to promote the quality
of educational development at all levels. Most English learners in Thailand, however, are
technically exposed to only two regional varieties of English usage, which are British English and
American English. Learners may thus form specific language attitudes towards these two variants
of English (Snodin & Young, 2015). However, when being involved in a multicultural context (e.g.
ASEAN) and encountering many other native or non-native varieties of English which may rarely
or even never be referred to in their English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms, Thai learners
may find some difficulties in comprehending such non-native accents and form certain attitudes
towards people who speak these variants of English accents. Some students may notice these
varieties as a challenging task that can enhance their English language proficiency; however,
others may feel that it is sometimes too difficult and unnecessary for them to comprehend such
non-native styles and this difficulty can demotivate their interest to study these varieties of spoken
English. Consequently, as was mentioned earlier that English has been adopted as the working
language or ELF in AEC, this has resulted in the emergence of ASEAN English accents, which
also raises the questions regarding the extent to which these non-native English accents will have

89
an impact on Thai students’ listening comprehension and attitudes. To provide answers to these
questions, a comprehensive study about ASEAN Englishes should be conducted. In Thailand there
have been several studies conducted to examine the linguistic features of ASEAN Englishes
(Natiladdanon & Thanavisuth, 2014); however, these studies do not investigate how Thai students
perceive and comprehend the accents of ASEAN spoken English. Therefore, the current study
aims at investigating Thai students’ English proficiency level in relation to their listening
comprehension of ASEAN spoken English and their attitudes towards these non-native English
accents in order to give a comprehensive explanation for better understanding of English as a
Lingua Franca in ASEAN.

2. Review literature

2.1 English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN

A lingua franca can be generally defined as a common language used as a medium of

communication between people who do not have the same mother tongue (Kirkpatrick, 2010). The
most clear and comprehensive definition was provided by Firth (1996). He defined a lingua franca
as “a contact language between persons who share neither a common native tongue nor a common
(national) culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign language of communication” (Firth,
1996, p. 240). The lingua franca is sometimes considered as a simplified, adapted, or specialized
form of a language for the purpose of a means of communication among people who have different
mother languages (McArthur, 2002). As English is being used as a main medium of
communication among non-native speakers of English, these speakers also have to develop
pragmatic strategies for intercultural communication, and in order to maintain their national
identities, these non-native speakers of English prefer to keep their own accents and integrate their
cultures into their speeches when speaking English (Graddol, 2006). Jenkins (2007) also supported
the notion that English as a Lingua Franca reflects the identities of speakers through their language
attitudes, cultures, and first languages. This means the path of development and the roles that
English plays have been changing and English is being adapted into many languages and cultures
(communities) including ASEAN. Kirkpatrick (2010) summarized that “English as a Lingua
Franca has become the major role of English in today’s world, the situation in ASEAN is simply

90
an example of this” (Kirkpatrick, 2010, p. 67). In ASEAN community, where all state members
(i.e. Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand and Vietnam) do not share their mother tongue, the member states have agreed to choose
English as the working language of ASEAN. According to H.E. Le Luong Minh, Secretary-
General of ASEAN, English enables us to interact with other ASEAN colleagues in our formal
meetings as well as day-to-day communications. From these interactions, we are able to get to
know better our regional neighbors, their interests, their concerns, as well as their dreams and
aspirations. Through English, we are raising our awareness of the ASEAN region and, with the
many characteristics we share and hold dear, further strengthening our sense of an ASEAN
Community. This suggests that English is increasingly playing a significant role and providing a
great impact on the citizens of ASEAN member states; therefore, the emergence of English as a
Lingua Franca in the ASEAN community is inevitable (Kirkpatrick, 2010).

2.2 Linguistic features of ASEAN English varieties

The use of non-standard forms of English is extremely common when it functions as a lingua
franca among people whose first language is not English. Chambers (2004) has even suggested
that there are a number of vernacular UNIVERSALS, non-standard features which occur in all
varieties of English. That is to say, the non-standard forms of English can be found in most all
varieties including a selection of African, American, Asian and British Englishes (Kortmann et al.
2004). Undoubtedly, as mentioned earlier, English functions as a lingua franca in ASEAN and this
means non-standard forms of English are regularly used in ASEAN Englishes. According to many
studies (i.e. Dayag, 2012; Deterding, 2013; Deterding & Mohamad, 2016; Hashim & Tan, 2012;
Keuk, 2009; Smith, 1996; Tam, 2005; Tiono & Yostanto, 2009; Trakulkasemsuk, 2012; Win, 2003)
several non-standard linguistic features of ASEAN Englishes have been described. Although there
are several distinctive features found in ASEAN Englishes as used by each member country, the
shared features in terms of phonology, lexicon, and syntax can be observed in these varieties as
well (Deterding & Kirkpatrick, 2006; Jenkins, 2009; Kirkpatrick, 2007; Kirkpatrick, 2008;
Kirkpatrick, 2010). This current study, however, aims at analyzing the effects of ASEAN English
accents, so only phonological features of varieties of ASEAN spoken English are primarily

91
summarized. According to Kirkpatrick (2008), despite their different first languages and cultures,
the most common shared phonological feature among ASEAN Englishes can be observed.
The first common feature of the phonology of ASEAN Englishes is a syllable-timed
manner. This is because most languages in ASEAN are syllable-timed and these mother tongues
are negatively transferred to English which is a stressed-timed language. Consequently, ASEAN
English speakers tend to put stress in every syllable of English words and avoid reducing vowels
in unstressed syllables. Another shared characteristic of ASEAN Englishes is that ASEAN
speakers of English usually do not produce clusters. Kirkpatrick (2010) explained that the dropping
of one of the consonants in a cluster is regularly found in English as a lingua franca in ASEAN.
The replacement of voiceless and voiced TH with a plosive is another common phonological
feature of ASEAN Englishes (Kirkpatrick, 2010). ASEAN speakers of English, for instance,
pronounce /t/ for voiceless and voiced TH in their speech. Mesthrie and Bhatt (2008) also found
that another shared phonological feature of ASEAN Englishes is the lack of distinction between
long and short vowels. ASEAN speakers of English usually merge long and short vowels, so the
distinction between minimal pairs such as ‘ship and sheep’, ‘baht and but’, and ‘pool and pull’ is
not realized in ASEAN Englishes (Deterding, 2007). This lack of distinction between short and
long vowel sounds also leads to the monophthongization of certain diphthongs (Kirkpatrick, 2010).
The monophthongization in ASEAN Englishes was reported in Deterding and Kirkpatrick (2006).
This reduction of vowel length in ASEAN Englishes also makes triphthongs bisyllabic and the
vowels of some triphthongs tend to be pronounced as homophones, rather than triphthongs, for
example, some triphthongs (as in ‘our’ and ‘hour’) would be pronounced with a /w/ between the
syllables (Kirkpatrick, 2010). The lack of aspiration on initial plosives is another shared phonology
of ASEAN Englishes. Deterding and Kirkpatrick (2006) indicated /t/ and /p/ as examples of the
lack of aspiration on initials in ASEAN Englishes. This means words like ‘time’ and ‘teach’ are
usually pronounced as /daɪm/ and /di:tʃ/ among ASEAN speakers of English. Another common
phonological features found among ASEAN Englishes is a lack of the reduction of vowels.
ASEAN speakers of English tend to pronounce a full vowel in a syllable in which the use of a
schwa may be needed (Kirkpatrick, 2010). They also usually give equal prominence to each
syllable. Kirkpatrick (2010) explained that this phenomenon is a result of the fact that most
languages in ASEAN are syllable-timed languages. The stressed pronoun in both subject positions
and object positions is another common feature of the phonology of ASEAN Englishes. This

92
means pronouns in sentences often receive stress when ASEAN speakers of English pronounce an
English sentence. The last shared phonological feature among ASEAN Englishes is the heavy-end
stress, which also frequently occurs on repeated words (Kirkpatrick, 2010). The last two distinctive
features of ASEAN English accents, however, do not possibly obstruct the overall comprehension
of non-native speeches and utterances in a given context. This is because the intonation of English
speeches does not affect the global understanding of an overall conversation.

Table1. Summary of common pronunciation features shared by ASEAN speakers of English

Feature Example (s)

reduction of consonant clusters ‘first’ is pronounced as /firs/
dental fricative /ɵ/ as /t/ ‘thing’ is pronounced as /tɪŋ/
merging of long and short vowel sounds /i:/ and /ɪ/ is pronounced as /ɪ/
monophthongization of diphthongs ‘way’ is pronounced as /we:/
reduced initial aspiration ‘teach’ is pronounced as /di:tʃ/
bisyllabic triphthongs ‘our’ is pronounced as /aʊwə/
lack of reduced vowels ‘to’ is pronounced as /tu:/
stressed pronouns and SHE has been to United States
heavy end-stress the express WAY

2.3 Understanding varieties of English accents

Although the use of English as a Lingua Franca is widely recognized, the extent to which these
phonological features of non-native English accents may obstruct the understanding of speakers
of other varieties is an important question that has to be addressed in studies about phonological
features of English as a Lingua Franca or its function as a means of international communication
among non-native speakers of English. This is because it is significant that “a lingua franca, as by
its very definition, needs to be intelligible across cultural and linguistic boundaries” (Kirkpatrick,
2010, p. 80). The concept of understanding varieties of English accents is, however, quite
complicated and difficult to define or investigate. Smith (2009) has classified the concept of

93
understanding English accents into three levels which are intelligibility, comprehensibility, and
interpretability.
• Intelligibility is the ability to identify and recognize words and utterances. The
intelligibility is considered the lowest level of understanding utterances.
• Comprehensibility refers to listeners’ ability to comprehend or understand the meaning
of speeches and utterances in a given context. The comprehensibility is regarded as the
second level of understanding and more difficult than the intelligibility.
• Interpretability means the ability of listeners to understand and perceive the pragmatics
of utterances. This means the listeners are able to comprehend the practical point of view
or the intention of speakers. The interpretability is the most difficult level of
understanding because it requires in practice the previous two levels of understanding in
order to be able to interpret the speakers’ intention.
It is assumed that the ability to identify words in the utterances and comprehend the meaning
of messages is primarily significant for international communication. The interpretability is, on
the other hand, occasionally required for some communicative contexts.

2.4 Possible causes of misunderstanding English utterances among ASEAN English speakers

The distinctive phonological features of ASEAN Englishes have been reported in many studies
(e.g. Dayang, 2012; Deterding & Kirkpatrick, 2006; Deterding, 2013; Hashim & Tan, 2012;
Kirkpatrick, 2010; Low, 2012; Moore & Bounchan, 2010; Smith, 1996; Tam, 2005; Tiono &
Yostanto, 2008; Trakulkasemsuk, 2012; Win, 2003) and some of these phonological features are
shared by most ASEAN varieties of English. Kirkpatrick (2010), however, confirmed that the use
of distinctive phonological features among ASEAN Englishes is not the main cause of
misunderstanding. He concluded that “the ASEAN ELF data shows remarkably few occasions
where communication was affected by the use of distinctive phonological feature” (Kirkpatrick,
2010, p. 81). This means there have been relatively few misunderstandings that occasionally occur
in some communication contexts. The following information summarizes the possible causes of
misunderstanding communication among ASEAN English speakers as reported by Kirkpatrick
(2010).

94
 • The first possible cause of misunderstanding is a mishearing. Kirkpatrick (2010) gave
an example of the communication context where a female Burmese mishears the word
‘room’ as pronounced by a male Indonesian as ‘food’.
• The second possible cause of misunderstanding is a speaker’s individual realization of
a vowel sound. That is, the speaker may mispronounce a vowel sound in some words.
For example, Kirkpatrick (2010) provided an example of a female Burmese
mispronounces ‘pearl’ as /ba:/ and this causes a female Indonesian to have to ask for
clarification in order to comprehend the utterances of the speaker.
• The last possible cause of misunderstanding is a speaker’s use of a wrong lexical item.
Kirkpatrick (2010) explained that a listener may need a clarification or a repetition from
a speaker when he thinks that the speaker has possibly used an incorrect word in the
utterance.

2.5 Language attitudes towards varieties of English accents

Regarding a sociolinguistic perspective, it is believed that non-native English speakers with their
own distinctive phonological features possibly encounter social judgments (Prakaiborisuth &
Trakulkasemsuk, 2015). Therefore, several studies have been conducted to investigate attitudes
towards varieties of native and non-native English accents. These studies (e.g. Al-Dosari, 2011;
Matsuura, 1994; McGee, 2009; Rajadurai, 2007; Tokumoto & Shibata, 2011) have reported that
language attitudes play significant roles in the acceptance and comprehension of a particular accent.
In particular, the majority of participants in those studies favored native accents over non-native
accents, and they indicated that native accents are easier to identify than non-native accents. Most
of the participants also expressed that they wished to adopt native accents as the model of English
accent because they perceived native accents as a prestigious and standard accent. However, some
participants were aware and realized that native English accents, especially Received
Pronunciation (RP), are not suitable for some communication contexts (Soraya & Foziah, 2004).
They believed that their local accents are more useful and intelligible when using as a mean of
communication in EFL or ESL contexts, and they do not mind speaking English with their local
accents (Soraya & Foziah, 2004). McGee (2009) also supported the notion that although standard
native accents are appreciated and have high regard, the importance of non-native English accents

95
needs to be acknowledged as well. This means practical concerns and situational needs should be
considered when making decisions whether to use local accents or native accents. It is clearly a
controversial and complicated issue whether native accents or non-native accents are preferable,
especially when Lingua Franca Core is a primarily concern. Rajudurai (2007) indicated that
English language learners should have freedom to choose their own models of accent; however, it
does not mean an intelligible non-native English accent should be considered instead of native
norms. The use of English for global communication, on the other hand, must be a core model for
language learners. Consequently, the ultimate goal of pronunciation teaching should be an
intelligible accent, not native accents or non-native accents (McGee 2009). McGee (2009) also
concluded that educators should aims at equipping students with effective communication skills at
the international level by providing an opportunity for students to be exposed to a variety of accents
including both native and non-native accents. This can make students shed both a positive and
negative attitudes towards a particular English accent, but become effective communicators who
are able to succeed in using English as a means of international communication.

2.6 The effects of accents and language attitudes on listening comprehension

Research on the relationship between accent and listening comprehension is inconclusive because
listening comprehension is considered a complex and complicated construct comprising a wide
range of processes. It has also been demonstrated that many factors such as exposure, familiarity,
and attitudes towards accents may contribute to the performance of a listener on listening
comprehension. Despite its complexity and the factors that affect the outcomes, many scholars
have summarized and suggested a relationship between spoken accents and listening
comprehension. There are both negative and positive effects of particular accents on listening
comprehension, according to many past studies. Flowerdew (1994) stated that unfamiliar accents
can cause difficulty in listening comprehension and some types of accented English probably help
listeners comprehend the speech easier. Grass and Varonis (1984) confirmed that familiarity with
a particular accent, as well as familiarity with the topic and the speaker, can support listening
comprehension. According to Eisenstein and Berkowitz (1981), ESL learners who have an
exposure to only American English and British English report that non-native English accents or
working-class New York English are more difficult to comprehend than standard English accents.

96
Bent and Bradlow (2003) also expressed that L2 learners may find non-native speech spoken by
speakers of their own accent background more intelligible than those spoken by native speakers.
However, according to some studies, the assertion that familiarity with an accent can positively
affect listening comprehension is only partially true. This is because several studies have reported
that familiarity with an accent might not necessarily provide advantages for listening
comprehension. Major et al. (2002) show that Spanish accented English is easier to understand for
native speakers of Spanish, but native speakers of Chinese find that Chinese accented English is
difficult to understand. Van Wijngaarden et al. (2002) also supported the idea that accent
familiarity has no advantage in listening comprehension. They reported that Dutch listeners found
Dutch accented English more difficult to comprehend than native English accents. A recent study
conducted by Tokumoto and Shibata (2011) also reported that Japanese and Korean ESL learners
prefer speech spoken by native speakers of English than those spoken by speakers sharing the
same L1 because native English pronunciation was described as easier to understand.
Another factor that might affect listening comprehension is the attitude or perception
towards accented speech (Lippi-Green, 1997). According to many studies, speakers with non-
native English accents are generally considered to be and categorized as learners, uneducated or
deficient speakers (Brennan & Brennan, 1981; Cargile, 1997). It has also been reported that such
negative perceptions and attitudes towards non-native speakers are not limited to native speakers
alone. That means non-native speakers of English also express negative attitudes towards non-
native English accents. As stated in Toro (1997), Puerto Rican students prefer listening to speech
spoken by Americans over those spoken by Greeks, Puerto Ricans or South Americans. Similarly,
Dalton-Puffer et al. (1997) reported that EFL learners in Austria have high positive attitudes
towards native English accents and have negative attitudes towards non-native English accents
like their own. Despite their negative attitudes towards non-native English accents, some EFL and
ESL learners have reported that using accented English is sometimes acceptable according to
listening activities. This means they believe that including non-native accents is acceptable if it is
relevant to their own communicative needs and serves the purpose of communication.

3. Research methodology

3.1 Objectives of the study

97
 3.1.1 To evaluate the level of listening comprehension of Thai students categorized into
three different proficiency groups (i.e. Basic User, Independent User, and Proficient User) when
listening to ASEAN English accents and native English accents.
3.1.2 To investigate Thai students’ reported attitudes towards native English accents and
ASEAN English accents.

3.2 Participants

The participants were 180 first-year Thai students studying at Srinakharinwirot University.
According to their Oxford Online Placement Test scores, the participants were classified into three
different proficiency groups in accordance with the Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages (CEFR). The three proficiency groups were (i) Basic User, (ii) Independent User,
and (iii) Proficient User, and there were 60 participants in each proficiency group in which the
participants were randomly assigned into two accent groups with equal number (i.e. Native English
Accent Group and ASEAN English Accent Group). The participants’ first language is Thai and
they have been studying English as a Foreign Language (EFL) for at least 12 years.

3.3 Research instrument

3.3.1 Oxford Online Placement Test

In this study, Oxford Online Placement Test was used to classify participants into three
different proficiency groups. The placement test does not only assess students’ grammatical and
vocabulary knowledge but it also evaluates test takers’ ability to apply knowledge to
communication contexts. The test consists of two main sections: ‘Use of English’ and ‘Listening’.
It gives both an overall score and individual scores for each section; the overall scores of each
student are interpreted in accordance with CEFR level.
3.3.2 Listening Test
The Listening Test was the main instrument of the current study to collect quantitative data
about the participants’ listening comprehension. The test consists of two main parts which are (i)
Discriminative Listening measuring participants’ micro listening skills, their ability to identify
and recognize words or the intelligibility of different words (sounds recognition and differentiation)

98
and (ii) Comprehension Listening measuring participants’ macro listening skills, the ability to
comprehend messages in the recording (listening for main ideas and specific information). There
was only one set of questions and scripts in the Listening Test; however, there were two different
audio recordings. Audio Recording A had only native English accents (British and American),
while Audio Recording B had ASEAN English accents.
3.3.3 Questionnaire
The questionnaires used to investigate the participants’ attitudes towards native English
accents and ASEAN English accents were composed of three main parts: (i) participants’
background information (age, sex, and contact with native or non-native speakers) and (ii) attitudes
towards native English accents and ASEAN English accents. The items in the second part of the
questionnaire were 16 closed items. Items 1 - 5 intended to elicit the participants’ stated attitudes
towards native English accents while items 6-10 were related to their stated attitudes towards
ASEAN English accents. The participants’ perspectives about the importance and perceived goals
of learning ASEAN English accents were examined through items 11-16 in the questionnaire.

3.4 Data collection procedures

The 180 participants were purposively selected from about 5,000 first-year students of
Srinakarinwirot University. The participants were classified into three different proficiency groups
(i.e. Basic User, Independent User, and Proficient User) according to their Oxford Online
Placement Test scores. There were 60 participants in each group and the participants in each
proficiency group were equally divided into two subgroups (i.e. Basic User A / Basic User B,
Independent User A / Independent User B, and Proficient User A / Proficient User B). The
participants in subgroup A from each of the three proficiency groups were asked to take the
listening test with Audio Recording A (native English accents) while subgroup B took the same
listening test but with Audio Recording B (ASEAN English accents). The listening test scores of
the participants in subgroup A and subgroup B were compared to find any significant differences
of the scores within each proficiency group. After the listening test, the participants were required
to complete the questionnaire, and the data collected from the questionnaire were analyzed in order
to investigate the participants’ reported attitudes toward English as spoken with native English
accents and with ASEAN accents.

99
4. Results

4.1 Research objective I

The first research objective aims at analyzing listening comprehension among three different
proficiency groups of Thai students when listening to English utterances spoken with different
accents, in this case ASEAN English accents and native English accents. As describe in the
research procedures, the participants were divided in to three proficiency group (i.e. Basic User,
Independent User, and Proficient User), and each proficiency group was randomly assigned into
two subgroups (i.e. Native English Accents Group and ASEAN English Accents Group) . To
answer this research question the t-test was conducted with the participants’ performance on
listening tests (Test A and Test B). The results of the t-test are reported in the following tables.

Table 2. The Comparison of Discriminative Listening Skills Score of Basic User when Listening
to Native English Accents ASEAN English Accents
N = 30

Participant Group  S.D. t 

Native English Accents Group 27.10 3.458 4.594* 0.000

ASEAN English Accents Group 23.03 3.157

Table 2 shows the comparison of discriminative listening skills score (ability to identify and
recognize words in minimal pairs) of Basic User group when listening to audio recordings of
Native English accents and ASEAN English accents. The result of t-test run on the discriminative
listening scores of Basic User(s) when listening to both accent groups (with t = 4.594) shows the
p-value of 0.000 which is lower than the 0.05 level of significance. This indicates that the
discriminative listening scores of Basic User(s) when listening to native English accents is
significantly higher than those listening to ASEAN English accents (the average score is 27.10 and
23.03 respectively).

100
Table 3. The Comparison of Comprehensive Listening Skills Scores of Basic User when Listening
to Native English Accents ASEAN English Accents
N = 30

Participant Group  S.D. t 

Native English Accents Group 8.37 1.189 5.885* 0.000

ASEAN English Accents Group 6.47 1.592

Table 3 shows the comparison of comprehensive listening skills score (the ability to comprehend
short and long conversations) of Basic User group when listening to native English accents and
ASEAN English accents. The result of t-test run on the comprehensive listening scores of Basic
User(s) when listening to both accent groups (with t = 5.885) shows the p-value of 0.000 which is
lower than the 0.05 level of significance. This indicates that the comprehensive listening scores of
Basic User(s) when listening to native English is significantly higher than those listening to
ASEAN English accents (the average score is 8.37 and 6.47 respectively).

Table 4. The Comparison of Discriminative Listening Skills Scores of Independent User when
Listening to Native English Accents and ASEAN English Accents
N = 30

Participant Group  S.D. t 

Native English Accents Group 29.67 1.826 3.355* 0.002

ASEAN English Accents Group 28.00 2.101

Table 4 shows the comparison of discriminative listening skills score (the ability to identify words
in minimal pairs) of Independent User group when listening to native English accents and ASEAN
English accents. The result of t-test run on the discriminative listening scores of Independent
User(s) when listening to both accent groups (with t = 3.355) shows the p-value of 0.002 which is
lower than the 0.05 level of significance. This indicates that the discriminative listening scores of

101
Independent User(s) when listening to native English accents is significantly higher than those
listening to ASEAN English accents (the average score is 29.67 and 28.00 respectively).

Table 5. The Comparison of Comprehensive Listening Skills Scores of Independent User Group
when Listening to Native English Accents and ASEAN English Accents
N = 30

Participant Group  S.D. t 

Native English Accents Group 8.67 0.547 0.532 0.599

ASEAN English Accents Group 8.57 0.858

Table 5 shows the comparison of comprehensive listening skills score (the ability to comprehend
short and long conversations) of Independent User group when listening to native English accents
and ASEAN English accents. The result of t-test run on the comprehensive listening scores of
Independent User(s) when listening to both accent groups (with t = 0.532) shows the p-value of
0.599 which is higher than the 0.05 level of significance. This indicates that the comprehensive
listening scores of Independent User(s) when listening to native English accents was not
significantly different from those listening to ASEAN English accents (the average score is 8.67
and 8.57 respectively).

Table 6. The Comparison of Discriminative Listening Skills Scores of Proficient User Group when
Listening to Native English Accents and ASEAN English Accents
N = 30

Participant Group  S.D. t 

Native English Accents Group 32.07 1.507 5.092* 0.000

ASEAN English Accents Group 29.07 2.678

102
Table 6 shows the comparison of discriminative listening skills score (ability to identify and
recognize words in minimal pairs) of Proficient User group when listening to native English
accents and ASEAN English accents. The result of t-test run on the discriminative listening scores
of Proficient User(s) when listening to both accent groups (with t = 5.092) shows the p-value of
0.000 which is lower than the 0.05 level of significance. This indicates that the discriminative
listening scores of Proficient User(s) when listening to native English accents is significantly
higher than those listening to ASEAN English accents (the average score is 32.07 and 29.07
respectively).

Table 7. The Comparison of Comprehensive Listening Skills Scores of Proficient User Group
when Listening to Native English Accents and ASEAN English Accents
N = 30

Participant Group  S.D. t 

Native English Accents Group 9.33 0.606 1.964 0.059

ASEAN English Accents Group 9.03 0.615

Table 7 shows the comparison of comprehensive listening skills score (the ability to comprehend
short and long conversations) of Proficient User group when listening to native English accents
and ASEAN English accents. The result of t-test run on the comprehensive listening scores of
Proficient User(s) when listening to both accent groups (with t = 1.964) shows the p-value of 0.059
which is higher than the 0.05 level of significance. This indicates that the comprehensive listening
scores of Independent User(s) when listening to native English accents was not significantly
different from those listening to ASEAN English accents (the average score is 9.33 and 9.03
respectively).

4.2 Research objective II

Research objective II aims at investigating Thai students’ stated attitudes towards native English
accents and ASEAN English accents as reported in the questionnaire. To provide the answer to
this research question, the results from the second part of the questionnaire were computed to find

103
means and standard deviations. The attitudes towards native English accents and ASEAN English
accents that Thai students provided in this questionnaire are categorized into Basic User,
Independent User, and Proficient User and illustrated with the meaning of agreement level in the
following tables.

Table 8. Overall Thai Students’ Attitudes towards Native English Accents

Attitude Proficiency  S.D.

Agreement Level
Group
Attitudes towards native Proficient User 4.04 0.54 Agree
English accents Independent User 3.93 0.50 Agree
Basic User 3.75 0.59 Agree

According to Table 8, the Proficient User group has the highest degree of reported positive
attitudes toward native English accents (average score is 4.04 and S.D. is 0.54) following by the
Independent User group (average score is 3.93 and S.D. is 0.50) and the Basic User group (average
score is 3.75 and S.D. is 0.59) respectively. These three groups, however, have the same level of
agreement in their reported attitudes, indicating that all of them agree that native English accents
are important.

Table 9. The Comparison of Thai Students’ Expressed Attitudes towards Native English Accents
(Individual Statement)

Attitudes towards Native Basic User Independent User Proficient User

English Accents N = 60 N = 60 N = 60

Statement  Level  Level  Level

1. I think native English
accents are the standard of 4.10 Agree 4.10 Agree 4.12 Agree
English accent.
2. I like listening to native Mostly Mostly
3.85 Agree 4.33 4.37
English accents. Agree Agree

104
 3. I understand conversations
Mostly
spoken by native speakers of 3.15 Agree 3.27 3.27 Agree
Agree
English.
4. I think native English
accents are easier to understand
3.50 Agree 3.53 Agree 3.62 Agree
than non-native English
accents.
5. I believe that listening to
conversations spoken by native Partly Mostly Mostly
4.23 4.43 4.40
speakers of English can Agree Agree Agree
improve listening skills.

Overall 3.75 Agree 3.93 Agree 4.04 Agree

Table 9 shows the detailed results of the comparison of Thai students’ expressed attitudes towards
native English accents in each individual statement among Basic User group, Independent User
group, and Proficient User group. According to Table 9, all participants groups express similar
attitudes that native English accents are the standard of English accent. The Independent User(s)
and Proficient User(s) also reported that they mostly like listening to native English accents, while
Basic User(s) only agree that they like listening to such accents. The Basic User(s) and Proficient
User(s) express similar attitudes that native English accents are understandable, but the
Independent User(s) express the same attitude at higher reported levels. When comparing native
English accents to ASEAN English accents, both Independent User(s) and Proficient User(s) report
that native English accents are easier for them to understand than non-native English accents;
however, the Basic User(s) have a more limited level of agreement about this comparison. Finally,
the participants in Independent User group and Proficient User group report to a high level that
listening to conversations spoken by native speakers of English can improve their listening skills,
but the participants in Basic User group only partly agree with this belief.
Table 10. Overall Thai Students’ Expressed Attitudes towards ASEAN English Accents

105
 Attitude Proficiency Group  S.D. Agreement Level
Attitudes towards ASEAN Proficient User 3.49 0.64 Agree
English accents Independent User 3.08 0.56 Partly Agree
Basic User 3.41 0.66 Agree

Table 10 shows that the Proficient User group has the highest degree of expressed positive attitudes
toward ASEAN English accents (average score is 3.49 and S.D. is 0.64) followed by the Basic
User group (average score is 3.41 and S.D. is 0.66) and the Independent User group (average score
is 3.08 and S.D. is 0.56) respectively. However, only the Proficient User group and the Basic User
group have the same level of expressed attitude towards ASEAN English accents in that they both
express agreement with the statement that ASEAN English accents are important. The Independent
User group, on the other hand, partly agrees with the statement that ASEAN English accents are
important.

Table 11. The Comparison of Thai Students’ Expressed Attitudes towards ASEAN English
Accents (Individual Statement)

Attitudes towards ASEAN Basic User Independent User Proficient User

English Accents N = 60 N = 60 N = 60

Statement  Level  Level  Level

1. I think ASEAN English
accents reflect the identity of 3.93 Agree 3.68 Agree 4.00 Agree
accents spoken in each country.
2. I like listening to ASEAN Partly Partly Partly
3.12 2.78 3.23
English accents. Agree Agree Agree
3. I understand English
conversations spoken by Partly Partly
3.28 3.10 3.52 Agree
speakers from ASEAN Agree Agree
countries.

106
 4. I think ASEAN English
Partly Partly Partly
accents are easier to understand 3.13 2.87 3.30
Agree Agree Agree
than native English accents.
5. I believe that listening to
English conversations spoken
Partly Partly Partly
by speakers in ASEAN 3.40 2.98 3.40
Agree Agree Agree
countries can improve listening
skills.

Partly
Over all 3.41 Agree 3.08 3.49 Agree
Agree

Table 11 shows the detailed breakdown of the comparison of Thai students’ reported attitudes
towards ASEAN English accents in each individual statement among Basic User group,
Independent User group, and Proficient User group. As shown in Table 11, the participants in all
English proficiency groups agree with the statement that ASEAN English accents reflect the
identity of English accents spoken in each country. Additionally, all of them partly state that they
agree with the statement that ‘I like listening to ASEAN English accents.’ The Basic User group
and the Independent User group reported that they partly understand English conversations spoken
by speakers from ASEAN countries; however, the Proficient User group reported a higher level of
agreement with the statement that English conversations spoken by speakers in ASEAN countries
are understandable. When comparing ASEAN English accents to native English accents, the
participants reported that they partly agree with the statement that ASEAN English accents are
easier to understand than native English accents. Moreover, most of the participants reported that
they partly agree with the statement that listening to English conversations spoken by speakers
from ASEAN countries can improve listening skills.

Table 12. Overall Thai Students’ Expressed Attitudes towards Learning ASEAN English Accents
Attitude Proficiency Group  S.D. Agreement Level
Attitudes towards learning Proficient User 3.66 0.70 Agree
ASEAN English accents Independent User 3.52 0.52 Agree

107
 Basic User 3.64 0.61 Agree

According to Table 12, the Proficient User group has the highest level of agreement with positive
statements toward learning ASEAN English accents (average score is 3.66 and S.D. is 0.70)
followed by the Basic User group (average score is 3.64 and S.D. is 0.61) and the Independent
User group (average score is 3.52 and S.D. is 0.52) respectively. These three groups, however,
have the same level of agreement with the statement indicating that learning ASEAN English
accents is important.
Table 13. The Comparison of Thai Students’ Expressed Attitudes towards Learning ASEAN
English Accents (Individual Statement)
Attitudes towards Learning
Basic User Independent User Proficient User
ASEAN English Accents
N = 60 N = 60 N = 60

Statement  Level  Level  Level

1. I think ASEAN English
accents should be included in a 3.70 Agree 3.55 Agree 3.60 Agree
basic listening course.
2. I think ASEAN English
accents should be included in
3.63 Agree 3.52 Agree 3.67 Agree
an intermediate listening
course.
3. I think ASEAN English
accents should be included in 3.42 Agree 3.43 Agree 3.52 Agree
an advanced listening course.
4. I think ASEAN English
accents should be included in a
3.67 Agree 3.45 Agree 3.60 Agree
listening course of English for
Specific Purposes (ESP).
5. I think both ASEAN English
3.75 Agree 3.40 Agree 3.70 Agree
accents and native English

108
 accents should be included in a
listening course.
6. I think ASEAN English
accents should be included in a 3.47 Agree 3.87 Agree 3.65 Agree
listening test.

Overall 3.61 Agree 3.51 Agree 3.72 Agree

Table 13 shows the detailed breakdown of the comparison of Thai students’ expressed attitudes
towards learning ASEAN English accents in each individual statement among Basic User group,
Independent User group, and Proficient User group. According to Table 13, the participants in all
English proficiency groups agreed with the statements that ASEAN English accents should be
included in a basic listening course, an intermediate listening course, an advanced listening course,
and a listening course of English for Specific Purposes (ESP). These participants also agreed with
the statement that both native English accents and ASEAN English accents should be included in
a listening course. In term of including ASEAN English accents in a listening test, all of them
agreed with the statement that such accents should be included in a listening test.

5. Discussion

Listening comprehension among three different proficiency groups of Thai students (i.e. Basic
User, Independent User, and Proficient User) when listening to ASEAN English accents and native
English accents.

The comparison of discriminative listening skills scores (i.e. the ability to identify and recognize
words or the intelligibility of different words) of the listening test with ASEAN English accents
and the listening test with native English accents provides evidence that ASEAN English accents
affect the scores on discriminative listening skills tests of the participating Thai students, whether
categorized as Basic Users, Independent Users, or Proficient Users. According to the results of the
current study, Thai students of all proficiency levels are able to distinguish and identify English

109
words and sentences pronounced by native speakers of English better than those pronounced by
ASEAN speakers of English. This suggests that ASEAN English accents may negatively affect
the intelligibility of spoken English by Thai students in term of the ability to identify and recognize
words and utterances. This phenomenon can possibly be explained by Kirkpatrick (2010).
According to Kirkpatrick (2010), the misunderstanding which is affected by the use of distinctive
features is occasionally reported. He provided an example of the case of the unintelligible occasion
where a female Burmese misheard the word ‘room’ pronounced by a male Indonesian as ‘food’.
Therefore, the barriers to intelligibility among Thai students when listening to words pronounced
by ASEAN speakers of English is possibly caused by the use of distinctive phonological features
of ASEAN Englishes.
In addition to the comparison of discriminative listening skills scores, the comparison of
comprehensive listening skills scores (ability to comprehend or understand the meaning of
speeches and utterances in a given context) of the listening test with ASEAN English accents and
the listening test with native English accents shows that there is a significant difference only among
participants in Basic User group. This means the ASEAN English accents do not seem to
negatively affect the comprehensibility among participants in Independent User group and
Proficient User group. This can be supported by the study of Bresnahan et al. (2002), who found
that the listening comprehension of students is only affected by an unintelligible foreign accent,
not comprehensibility. Harding (2008) also reported that there is no significant difference in the
performance of ESL and EFL students on a listening test when non-native accents were used. That
Independent User(s) and Proficient User(s) in this study were able to comprehend the ASEAN
accented conversations but unable to identify and recognize occasional words might possibly be
attributed to the given context, while short and long conversations may aid listening
comprehension of ASEAN accented speech. This means that Independent User(s) and Proficient
User(s) use the given context to help them comprehend the overall conversations although they
might not be able to identify some specific words pronounced with distinctive features of ASEAN
accents. The findings of the current study also correspond with the assumption that the intonation
of ASEAN accented speeches (i.e. the utterances with stressed pronouns or heavy end stress) does
not obstruct the global understanding of an overall conversation. Participants in the Basic User
group, however, seem to have been affected by ASEAN English accents more, in that the current
study shows a significant difference in their performance on listening comprehension tests with

110
native English accents and ASEAN English accents. That is to say, there was a significant
difference in the group’s test scores when listening to conversations spoken by native speakers of
English. This indicates that there may be a concern for all members of the Basic Group when
listening to ASEAN accented conversations although they are spoken with the given context.

Thai students’ expressed attitudes towards native English accents and ASEAN English accents

The participating Thai students in all three groups (Basic User, Independent User, and Proficient
User) agreed with the positive statements in the questionnaire about native English accents, and
there was agreement with the statement that native English accents are the standard of a spoken
English accent. These participants also agreed with statements that expressed positive attitudes
towards ASEAN English accents and they recognized ASEAN English accents as variants
reflecting the identity of each country. However, when comparing ASEAN English accents to
native English accents, Thai students prefer listening to native English utterances rather than those
conversations spoken by ASEAN speakers of English. Additionally, they mostly agree with
statements that listening to conversations spoken by native speakers of English can improve their
listening skills, and partly agree with statements that ASEAN English accents can help them
improve their listening skills. The findings of the current study also correspond with the findings
of other studies (e.g. Al-Dosari, 2011; McGee, 2009; Rajadurai, 2007; Tokumoto & Shibata, 2011).
These studies have found that learners of English perceive native English accents (e.g. American
English accent and British English accent) as being the standard accent and which is easier to
identify and understand.
In addition to their preference and awareness, the participating Thai students agreed that
ASEAN English accents should be included in listening courses and listening comprehension tests.
They reported that these accents should be included in all levels of listening courses as well as a
listening course of English for Specific Purposes. There was also large level of agreement that it
would be acceptable to include ASEAN English accents in a listening comprehension test. This
suggests that despite some degree of preference for native English accents, participants in this
study agreed with statements regarding the importance of ASEAN Englishes as well. The findings
of the current study are supported by McGee (2009) who expressed that the importance of non-
native English accents should be acknowledge although standard native accents are appreciated

111
and have high regard. Therefore, language teachers should provide an opportunity for learners to
be exposed to a variety of accents including both native and non-native in order to equip these
learners with effective communication skills at the international level. This means providing
learners with the opportunity to learn and expose to both native and non-native accents can help
learners shed both a positive and negative attitude towards a particular English accent in order to
be an effective communicator who is able to use English as a means of international
communication successfully (McGee, 2009).

6. Conclusion

The current study represents a first attempt at gathering information pertaining to the question of
whether ASEAN English accented utterances affect the listening comprehension of participating
Thai students, as categorized into groups based on proficiency. Additionally, a questionnaire of
statements expressing attitudes towards the accents of spoken English compared their responses
to ASEAN English accents and native English accents. The results of the study indicate that
ASEAN English accents probably have negative effects on Thai students’ intelligibility. That is
Thai students of all proficiency levels are unable to identify and recognize some words spoken by
ASEAN English speakers. However, the same participants found that ASEAN English accents did
not affect the comprehensibility of conversations among participants in the Independent User
group and Proficient User group. That is to say, the results showed no effects on the scores of Thai
Independent User(s) and Proficient User(s) in terms of being able to comprehend or understand
the meaning of speeches and utterances in a given context. Basic User(s), on the other hand, did
not perform as well on this same test of short and long conversations when the audio recordings
were spoken by speakers with ASEAN English accents. In addition to the effects of ASEAN
English accents, nearly all participants agreed with statement that there was importance of learning
ASEAN English accents. They agreed with statements regarding the inclusion of ASEAN English
accents in listening courses and listening comprehension tests.
Although the findings of the currents are partially conclusive, further research is necessary
because of the limitations of the study. The study findings about Thai students’ attitudes towards
native English accents and ASEAN English accents are limited to only data collected from the
questionnaire and based on a multiple choice format rather than in-depth interviews. It is, therefore,

112
recommended that further study may utilize other methods of data collection such as interviews in
order to draw a more conclusive result. The further study should also deeply investigate listening
strategies utilized by Independent User(s) and Proficient User(s) to comprehend ASEAN accented
conversations so that the findings will possibly provide advantages to Basic User(s) in term of
learning such listening strategies for successful ways to listen to non-native English accents. It is
also recommended that a real communication situation where there are different ASEAN English
speakers should be utilized to collect data about the listening and communicative strategies used
for a successful communication.

References
Abeywickrama, P. (2013). Why not non-native varieties of English as listening comprehension
test input? RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 44, 59-74.
Al-Dosari, H. (2011). An investigation of attitudes towards varieties of spoken English in a multi-
lingual environment. Theories and Practice in Language Studies. 1(9), 1041-1050.
ASEAN (2008). The ASEAN Charter. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
Bradlow, AR., & Bent, T. (2003). The clear speech effect for non-native listeners. The Journal of
the Acoustical Society of America. 112(1), 272-284.
Brennan, E., & Brennan, J.S. (1981). Measurement of accent and attitude towards Mexican-
American Speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10, 487-501.
Cargile, A. C. (1997). Attitudes towards Chinese-accented speech: An investigation in two
contexts. Journal of language and Social Psychology, 16, 434-443.
Chambers, J. (2004). Dynamic typology and vernacular universals. In B. Kortmann (ed.),
Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter, 124-145.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Choomthong, D. (2014). Preparing Thai students’ English for the ASEAN Economic Community:
Some pedagogical implications and trends. Language Education and Acquisition Research
Network (LEARN) Journal, 7(1), 45-57.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Kaltenboeck, G., & Smit, U. (1997). Learner attitudes and L2 pronunciation in
Austria. World Englishes, 16, 115-128.

113
Deterding, D. (2007). Singapore English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Deterding, D. (2013). Misunderstandings in English as a lingua franca: An analysis of EFL
interactions in South-East Asia. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Deterding, D. & A. Kirkpatrick (2006). Emerging Asian Englishes and intelligibility, World
Englishes, 25.3/4, 391-410.
Deterding, D. & N. R. Mohamad. (2016) The lingua franca core and Englishes in East and
Southeast Asia. Asiatic, 10(2), 60-77.
Eisenstein, M. R., & Berkowitz, D. (1981). The effect of phonological variation on adult learner
comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 75-80.
Fabricius, A. (2002). Ongoing change in modern RP: Evidence for the disappearing stigma of t-
glottalling. English Word-Wide, 23(1), 115-136.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and
conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 237-259.
Flowerdew, J. (1994). Research on relevance to second language lecture comprehension: An
overview. In J. Flowerdew (ed.), Academic listening (pp. 9-23). Cambridge, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council.
Grass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1984). The effect of familiarity on non-native speech. Language
Learning, 34, 65-89.
Hashim, A. and Tan, R.S.K. (2012). Malaysian English. In: E-L. Low and A. Hashim, (eds.)
English in Southeast Asia: features, policy and language in use. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp.55-74.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitudes and identity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jenkins, J. (2009). English as a lingual franca: interpretations and attitudes. World Englishes,
28(2), 200-207.
Keuk, C. N. (2009). How intelligible is Cambodian English variety? A look from foreigners’
perspectives. CamTESOL Selected Papers, 5, 23-35.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and
English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

114
Kirkpatrick, A. (2008). English as the official working language of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN): Features and Strategies. English Today, 24(2), 27-34.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingual franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Kortmann, B., K. Burridge, R. Mesthrie, E. Schneider & C. Upton (eds.) (2004). A handbook of
varieties of English, vol. 2: Morphology and syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English With An Accent. London: Routledge.
Low, E. L. (2012). Singapore English. In E. Low & A. Hashim (Eds.), English in Southeast Asia:
Features, policy and language in use (pp.35-54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Major, R. C., Fitzmaurice, S. F., Bunta F., & Balasubramanium, C. (2002). The effects of
nonnative accents on listening comprehension: implications for assessment. TESOL
Quarterly, 36(2), 173-190.
McArthur, T. (2002). English as an Asian Language. ABD Journal, 33(2), 3-4.
McGee, K. (2009). Attitudes towards Accents of English at the British Council, Penang: What Do
the Students Want? Malaysian Journal of ELT Research (5), 162-205.
Mesthrie, R. & R. Bhatt (2008). World Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, S.H., & Bounchan, S. (2010). English in Cambodia: changes and challenges. World
Englishes, 29(10), 14-26.
Natiladdanon, K. & Thanavisuth, C. (2014). Attitudes, awareness, and comprehensibility of
ASEAN English accents: A qualitative study of university students in Thailand. Catalyst,
16-30.
Trakulkasemsuk, W. & Prakaiborisuth, P. (2015). Attitudes of Thai University Students towards
ASEAN Englishes. CD Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Humanities
and Social Sciences “ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (pp. 62-74). 5 – 6 June,
Thailand: BP Samila Beach Hotel and Resort, Songkhla.
Rajadurai, J. (2007). Intelligibility studies: a consideration of empirical and ideological issues.
World Englishes, 26(1), 87-98.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sharifian, F. (2010). Semantic and pragmatic conceptualizations within an emerging varieties:
Persian English. In A. Kirkpatrick (ed.), Handbook of world Englishes. London: Routledge,
442-457.

115
Smith, H. (1996). English language acquisition in the Lao community of Wellington:
Recommendations for refugee groups. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 6, 1-15.
Retrieved from http//:www.msd.govt. nz/documents/about/spj6-english-language.doc
Smith, L. E. (2009). Dimensions of understanding in cross-cultural communication. In K. Murata
and J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian contexts: Current and future debates (pp.
17-25). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Snodin, N. & Young, T.J. (2015). ‘Native-speaker’ varieties of English: Thai Perceptions and
attitudes. Asian Englishes, 17(3), 248-260.
Tam, H. C. (2005). Common pronunciation problems of Vietnamese learners of English. Journal
of Science-Foreign Languages, 21(1), 35-46.
Tiono, N.I. & Yostanto, A.M. (2008). A study of English phonological errors produced by English
department students. A Biannual Publication on the Study of Language and Literature,
10(1), 79-111.
Tokumoto, M., & Shibata, M. (2011). Asian Varieties of English: Attitudes towards Pronunciation.
World Englishes, 30 (3), 392-408.
Toro, M. I. (1997). The effect of accent on listening comprehension and attitudes of ESL students
(Master’s thesis, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, 1997). Masters Abstracts
International, 36, 0041.
Trakulkasemsuk, W. (2012). English in Thailand, In Low, E.L. & Azirah, H. (Eds.), English in
Southeast Asia: Features, policy and language in use. 101-111. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Van Wijngaarden, S., Steeneken, H., & Houtgast, T. (2002). Quantifying the intelligibility of
speech in noise for non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111,
1906-1916.
Win, T. T. (2003). Burmese English accent. In K. L. Adams, T. J. Hudak, & F. K. Lehman (Eds.),
Papers from the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society,
Tempe, Arizona, (pp.225-241). Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian
Studies.

116
 An Academic Word List for English Language Teaching

Le Pham Hoai Huong

Hue University
Hue University of Foreign Languages
Vietnam

Abstract
Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List has inspired the creation of a number of other academic
word lists in various disciplines. However, no list has exclusively targeted the field of English
Language Teaching (ELT). This paper reports the corpus analysis for a word list for ELT using the
software RANGE. A total of nine books in ELT were chosen for the analysis, which resulted in a
corpus of 702,828 running words. The selection of the word list was then carried out, basing on
the criteria that the word families must be outside the first 2,000 most frequently occurring words
of English as presented in West’s (1953) general word list. Besides, the occurrence of the words
must be about 50% to be included in the list (Coxhead, 2000; Khani & Tazik, 2013; Yang, 2015).
The final word list for ELT includes 665 academic words specific to English language teaching
and learning.

Keywords: Academic vocabulary, word list, ELT

1. Introduction
1.1 The Importance of Vocabulary in ELT
Vocabulary is an integrated part of the English language learning and teaching. A number of word
lists have been compiled to meet the academic vocabulary needs of students in higher education
settings. History of word lists started with the General Service List created by West (1953) with
2,000 words serving the purpose of learning English in general. Another important word list was
made by Xue and Nation (1984) and referred to as A University Word List containing 836 words
which usually appear in academic texts. The list is divided into 11 levels from the most frequency
to the least frequency. The Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000) is regarded as a useful learning

117
tool for learners with academic purposes (Coxhead & Nation, 2001). This list is different from the
previous two lists in the way that it contains 570 semantic fields and the words appear with great
frequency in a variety of academic texts. Despite the fact that these lists are of great use, they are
not entirely useful for a specific area because of their narrow coverage of some word families and
the shortage of frequently used words in a certain field (Lui & Han, 2015). Besides, given the
specific purpose of vocabulary enlisted for a certain area, “there must be some unique features in
the academic vocabulary across sub-disciplines of one discipline” (Khani & Saeedi, 2017, p.55).
Therefore, it is necessary to establish a field-specific word list that better reflects specialized
features.
The field of ELT has existed since the 15th century (Richards, 2012); however, no specific
word list has been made to address the needs of teaching and learning in this field. Clearly,
mastering vocabulary in one language has always been a target of most learners. This is even more
essential with students in ELT who have to deal with lots of academic tasks, such as reading,
writing, presentations, or projects, etc. in learning English in general and English as a second or a
foreign language in particular. English learners need both the receptive and productive knowledge
of a large number of academic words. Knowledge of academic words is usually linked to content
knowledge (Sibold, 2011, p. 24). As they are embedded in academic texts and materials, knowing
these words can lead to students’ development in their writing and reading (Khani & Tazik, 2013)
and success in higher education (Corson, 1997). It is reported that academic vocabulary is most
problematic for learners to learn because academic words are generally not taught in a manner like
any other subjects (Thurstun & Candlin, 1998). In addition, as academic vocabulary appears in a
wide range of academic texts and is presented in specific contexts, it is even more important to be
familiar with them. Academic vocabulary can be used both productively and receptively in such
contexts as interactional communication with their content teachers of reading course materials
and information sources from the Internet (Akbari & Tahririan, 2009). Therefore, when equipped
with academic words, students can acquire new learning strategies and skills (Coxhead & Nation,
2001; Marzano, 2005). In addition to the benefits of academic word lists, there are some criticisms
against academic word lists. For example, Hyland and Tse (2007, p. 238) pointed out, “It remains
unclear how well the academic word list can be said to represent the lexical composition of
academic writing in English, and we have little idea of its coverage in particular disciplines and
genres.”

118
 It can be generally seen that there is connection between a field of study and a word list for
that field to support learners with a learning tool in systematizing their vocabulary knowledge.
Despite the fact that ELT is a long-standing and worldwide field, and that it is of importance for
learners to know a list of academic words in ELT, there has been no list created for this specific
area. Besides, although research has illuminated the literature of how to create word lists, no study
to date has provided specific steps to illustrate the process of making a word list.
1.2 Academic vocabulary
Academic vocabulary has been defined in different ways. Mukoroli (2011, p.9) states, “Academic
vocabulary is used across all academic disciplines to teach about the content of the discipline. For
example, students who study chemistry are required to know the chemistry concepts”. Baumann
and Graves (2010), however, divide academic vocabulary into two categories: content-specific and
general academic words. Content-specific words are used in certain disciplines, such as
mathematics, tourism, and biology, whereas general academic vocabulary seems to exist in any
content areas but may vary in meaning because of the discipline itself. As for its appearance in
academic sources, Yang (2014, p. 28) points out, “Academic words refer to words that account for
a relatively high proportion of running words in all academic texts”.
Vocabulary has drawn attention of linguists and researchers since Averil Coxhead
published the academic word list with 570 words. According to the author, each academic word
includes a stem plus “all inflections and the most frequent, productive, and regular prefixes and
suffixes” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 218). For example, the estimate family consists of 15 words that
include the inflected forms estimates and estimated and the prefixed derivatives overestimate and
underestimate. Similarly, Le Cam Thi Nguyen & Nation (2011, p. 88) provide an example of a
word family which consists of a head word and its inflected forms as well as other derived forms.
According to them, the headword of a family must be a free form in the way that it can stand as a
word on its own right. However, the derived forms include such components as affixes which are
added to free forms. One example of a word family includes: Access, Accessed, Accesses,
Accessibility, Inaccessibility, Accessible, Accessing, and Inaccessible. In this example, the
headword is access, and the whole family includes eight members with the inflected forms, and
derivatives.
The academic word list, according to Coxhead (2000), contains the words that are selected
from a wide range of academic readings. The creation of the academic word list has proved to be

119
useful to students at tertiary level because it appears reasonably frequently in academic writing
and comprises some 8%-10% of running words in academic texts (Nation, 2001). For learners at
tertiary level, academic vocabulary is part of their study; however, learning academic vocabulary
is a challenge to them because it is more specific and sometimes abstract.

1.3 Domain-Specific Academic Vocabulary

Coxhead (2000) developed the Academic Word List (AWL) which has inspired a number
of studies creating word lists in various fields. In general, academic vocabulary can be roughly
categorized into two types: general academic word lists and field-specific academic word lists.
General academic word lists are concerned with common academic words among different
disciplines. Field-specific academic word lists (Martínez, Beck & Panza, 2009) or discipline-based
lexical repertoires (Hyland & Tse, 2007) focus on the academic vocabulary closely related to
disciplines (Lui & Han, 2015). Yang (2015) pointed out that it is necessary to generate field-
specific academic word lists for EFL students to strengthen their academic reading and writing
proficiency. Similarly, Hyland and Tse (2007) point out that it would be more effective to learn a
discipline-specific list rather than a general list. This is because in their studies, students may not
meet the words in a general list, still they have to spend much time learning these words.
Hyland and Tse (2007) consider that the existence of a single academic word list is dubious
because it does not tell much about collocational and semantic variation within or between the
fields. It is more useful for students if they can have a specific word list that they need to work
towards. Similarly, Martinez et al. (2009, p. 183) suggest that there is a “need to produce field-
specific academic word list” which “incorporates all frequent academic lexical items necessary for
the expression of the rhetoric of the specific research area”. It can be explained that the need for
field-specific vocabularies is important as some words which may occur more frequently in one
field may not be present in another (Xue & Nation, 1984). For example, some words in the field
of medicine such as neurological diseases, radioactive may be unfamiliar to learners of the
pedagogy who may focus more on such words as teaching methodology, assessment, teaching
reflections. Even when a word is used in different fields, it means different things. A check in
medicine just is usually associated with a “heath check” whereas in education, it usually goes with
meaning check for understanding or comprehension. Baumann and Graves (2010, p. 10) define
that “domain- specific academic vocabulary includes the low-frequency words and phrases that

120
appear in content area textbooks and other technical writing materials”. In this sense, the words
such as absolute value, bisect, coefficient, constant, equation, factor, functional notation,
inequality, irrational number, perpendicular, and vertex are likely to be included in mathematics
textbooks.
There is no doubt that the development of academic word lists can help not only second
language learners but also textbook writers, teachers with the identification and selection of
academic vocabulary in their instructional planning (Nushi & Jenabzadeh, 2016). Textbook writers
can select materials for the books that cover the words in a certain word list to streamline materials
to a certain discipline. Teachers can refer to a word list to help students learn the words receptively
and productively in a certain course. “By defining an area of language use and by studying
vocabulary relevant to that area, it is possible to add to the number of high frequency words that a
teacher can usefully deal with” (Xue & Nation, 1984, p. 215). Students also benefit from the list
for their own reference or setting a goal to master the list to advance in their learning.
A number of word lists have been compiled to meet the academic vocabulary needs of
students in higher education settings. For example, the General Service List by West (1953)
includes lots of words which were chosen because they were thought to be of greatest 'general' use
to learners of English. There are 2,000 headwords in this list and each of these headwords
represents a word family (e.g. 'you' is the headword of the family 'your, yours, yourself'). The
University Word List created by Xue and Nation (1984) contains 836 words. These words are not
included in the 2,000 words of the General Service List (West, 1953), but are common in academic
texts. There are 11 levels in the list, with Level 1 showing the words of the most frequency and
Level 11 the least frequency. The words from levels 1 to 11 make up 8% of the words in a typical
academic text (Nation, 1990).
The word list for ELT is specific to English teaching and learning. However, it needs to
contain all features of a general academic word list as pointed out by Coxhead (2000). For words
to be listed in an academic word list, Coxhead (2000, p. 218) state that a word family is defined as
a stem plus all closely related affixes. For example, beautiful and beautified are in the same word
family.
In general, despite the establishment of the word lists for various disciplines, to my
knowledge, no list has exclusively targeted ELT. Besides, given the fact that ELT has a long-
standing history of a major field of education, it is necessary to systematize a word list in this area.

121
This study thus was set out to create this list exclusively for ELT can be taught and directly studied
in the same way as the words from West’s (1953) General Service List of English words (GSL)
and Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List (AWL) but the content is obviously different and
specific for ELT.

2. Research Methodology
2.1 Research questions
This study was set out to find the answers for the following questions:
1. What is the process of creating an academic word list for ELT?
2. What does this list consist of?
To carry out the study, such factors as size of corpus, materials, and processing software were
considered. The following subsections will describe each criterion in detail.
2.2 Size of corpus
Size of a corpus is an important factor in generating a word list and it is one of the first
criterion to consider in corpus study. Coxhead (2000, p. 216) points out, “A corpus designed for
the study of academic vocabulary should be large enough to endure a reasonable number of
occurrences of academic words.” Despite the fact that size of a corpus is important, the exact
number of words to be included in word lists is not specified in any documents. Therefore, the
purpose and use of the corpus should be taken into consideration. In general, according to Coxhead
(2000), more language means that we can know more deeply about the lexical items and more
words in contexts.
A closer look to the literature on word corpus studies indicates that sizes of copra vary in
different studies. For example, one of the earliest study by Elley (1971) developed a list from a
corpus with 301,800 running words involving 28 subject areas which were organised into 7 general
areas within each of four disciplines: arts, commerce, law, and science. Similarly, Praninskas (1972)
made one list out of a smaller corpus with 270,000 words for arts and science. Later, Ghadessy
(1979) created one with 478,000 running words for chemistry, biology, and physics, and Burgess
and Livesay (1998) with 300,000 running words for the field of economics. Coxhead (2000) made
a list from a corpus of 883,214 for the arts, 879,547 for the commerce, 874,723 for the law, and
875,846 for the science. Hyland and Tse (2007) used a 569,000-word engineering corpus, Ward
(2009) with 271, 000 words for an engineering word list, Liu and Han (2015) with 862,242 tokens

122
to design an environmental academic word list. More recently, Nguyễn Lê Ngân Chinh (2016)
created a list for nursing based on a corpus of 680,150 running words. The academic word list
corpus for applied linguistics prepared by Chung and Nation (2003) had the total of 5,137 words
and the one by Vongpumivitch, Huang, & Chang (2009) had a 1.5 million words. Wang, Liang,
and Ge (2008) established a medical academic word list from a corpus containing 1,093,011
running words from online resources. The list specializing in culinary prepared by NR, Stapa and
Darus (2013) was run from a corpus of 3698 words. The medical academic word list by Lei and
Liu (2016) was created from two corpora with totaling 2.79 million running words. The most
recent word list, the Academic Spoken Word List, was developed to help second language learners
enhance their comprehension of academic speech in English-medium universities containing 1,741
word families (Dang, Coxhead & Webb, 2017).
In general, there is no fixed criterion for deciding the size of a corpus to create a word list
but it should be at least more than 5000 words as documented in the literature.
2.3 Materials
Clearly, a specific word list should be created from the collection of the materials in that
field discipline which comprises of books, textbooks, or journal articles. The earlier academic word
list by Coxhead (1998) used academic texts and the more updated one by Coxhead (2000) came
from representative texts from the academic domain including articles from academic journals,
articles from worldwide webs, university course books and textbooks. The word list for
engineering by Ward (2009) was based on books for engineering topics. Chung and Nation (2003)
used anatomy texts and applied linguistics texts to create a technical word list. Journal articles
were chosen for the applied linguistics corpus by Vongpumivitch, Huang and Chang (2009). The
nursing word list by Yang (2015) was from the English nursing research articles from online
resources. The criterion for material selection is assumed that texts should be academic sources in
forms of books, textbooks, articles in printed or online forms. In general, the criterion for choosing
corpus materials is that the materials serve the purpose of learning in a specific field.
The corpus chosen in this study includes nine books listed as required course books and
reference materials for English teacher education programs, in other words, in ELT. The books
include: Principles of language teaching and learning (Brown, 2000); Techniques and principles
in language teaching (Larsen-Freeman, 2000); BA upgrade: English language teaching
methodology (Nguyen, Bui, Truong, Ho, Nguyen, Phan & Truong, 2003); How to teach English

123
(Harmer, 2007); Teaching large multilevel classes (Hess, 2007); The practice of English language
teaching (Harmer, 1991); Techniques in Teaching Writing (Raimes, 1983); Materials and Methods
in ELT (McDonough & Shaw, 2012); A course in language teaching (Ur, 1999). Before they were
converted into text files, their contents were scrutinized to ensure that the books were for the field
of ELT. Clearly, their titles have spoken for themselves and their enlistment in the reading lists of
ELT programs confirm the relevance. In general, these books were written by different authors and
published in different countries but share the common theme of ELT. They are the well-known
books that can be found in the list of required and reference materials in most English teacher
training programs at any universities in the world.

2.4 Using the Software Range

The reliability of the software Range has been testified in most corpus-based studies. For
example, Hyland and Tse (2007) made a corpus words from a selection of academic disciplines
and genres and used Range to sort out the academic words. Coxhead (1998) and Coxhead (2000)
proved that Range was an effective tool. The author compiled a corpus of 3.5 million running
words of written academic text. Wang, Liang and Ge (2008) established a medical academic word
list using Range to run the corpus. Similarly, Ward (2009) reported to run Range software against
the engineering corpus to obtain frequency data for all the words over the five subsections
representing each of the engineering sub-disciplines. The academic word list for finance made by
Li and Qian (2010) also used Range software. It can be explained that reliability and accessibility
of the software make it popular in use to determine vocabulary size and acquisition (Klinmanee &
Sopprasong, 1997; Laufer & Paribakht, 1998; Nation & Wang, 1999; Coxhead, 2000; Nation &
DeWeerdt, 2002).
2.5 Processing the Academic Wordlist for ELT
To run the corpus, first, the books in PDF format were converted into text files. Then, the
Range software was used for analysis. This software “can be used to find the coverage of a text by
certain word lists, to create word lists based on frequency and range, and to discover shared and
unique vocabulary in several pieces of writing” (Nation, 2005, p. 2). The software Range,
downloaded from the website of the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand at
https://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/resources/range, was then installed and its use instruction was
referred to. The nine books as corpus materials in text format were opened in the Range software

124
for analysis. The result appears as followed:

Image 1: Word List Analysis from Range

As can seen from the image, there are three lists of words and also words that were excluded
from any of the three lists. The information of the three word lists was then extracted and presented
in the following table.

Table 1: Analysis of the Corpus to Create the Wordlist for ELT

WORD LIST TOKENS/% TYPES/% FAMILIES

(Running words)
One 533169/75.86 3273/ 8.73 991
(General words)
Two 33333/ 4.74 2062/ 5.50 867
(General words)
Three 50098/ 7.13 2090/ 5.57 562
(Academic words)
Not in the list 86228/12.27 30071/80.20

Total 702828 37496 2420

As can be seen from Table 1, the corpus of the current study contains 702,828 tokens/words.
The analysis shows that the general words list one as sorted out by Range is 991 word families,

125
and 867 word families for word list 2. As mentioned earlier, word lists 1 and 2 serve general
purposes, not academic ones. Thus, only the academic words (list 3 from the table) with 562 word
families were chosen to be further filtered to make a word list for ELT. The selection at this stage
continues to align with the guidelines from Range website given by Victoria University of
Wellington, New Zealand which state the exclusion the 2000 words in word list one and word list
two processed by Range. All the words from the Range analysis were then converted into an excel
file for further analysis. The result is illustrated below:

Image 2: Word Lists Converted into Excel File

As can be seen from the bottom of the image, the analysis is arranged from WL1 (Word
List 1) to WL3 (Word List 3). There are also words that do not belong to any of the three lists and
they are listed “not in the list”. Only data from word list three were then further analysed to create

126
the word list for ELT. The selection sticks to the instruction by Coxhead (2000) that a word list
needs a specialized occurrence and the word families must be outside the first 2,000 most
frequently occurring words of English as presented in West’s (1953) general word list. Besides,
the occurrence of the words must meet 50% to be included in the list as suggested by Coxhead
(2000), Yang (2015), and Khani and Tazik (2013).
In Coxhead’s view, using range as the first criterion for word selection can help minimize
any possible bias from word repetition within longer texts and topic-related texts. Therefore, range
should be prioritized over frequency to avoid bias which may be generated by longer texts and
topic-related words. The process of selecting words was also based on similar criteria of range and
frequency described in studies by Khani and Tazik (2013) and Ward (2007).
Data processed from Range software were then saved as an Excel file to facilitate further
data analysis. Two criteria that were adopted to create an academic word list for ELT in this study
were range and frequency. Coxhead (2000) ranked range as the first criterion and frequency as the
second when she established her Academic Word List (AWL). The researcher argued that a word
count mainly based on frequency would have been biased by longer texts and topic-related words.
Hence, Coxhead suggested that frequency is considered secondary to range. In other words, the
word families have to occur in half of the subject areas of the academic corpus to be included in
the list. Below is an example of how range and frequency were used to select a word to be put
in the academic word list for ELT.
Image 3: An Example of Word Selection for the Academic Word List for ELT

As can be seen from Image 3, the word abandon appears in two books: book 1 (F1) and
book 4 (F4), so its range is only 2 out of 9 but its frequency is 12 (nine times of appearance in
book 1 and three in book 4). The low range score of the word abandon excludes it from being
selected for the word list. In comparison, the word abandoned has a higher score of range and
meets the criterion of selection, it was therefore included in the word list for ELT. Similarly, other
words that meet the criteria of range and frequency as mentioned earlier were compiled for the list

127
for ELT.

3. Result: The Academic Word List for ELT

The list contains 665 words as shown in Appendix 1. As stated earlier, the words were
extracted from a corpus of nine books in the field of ELT which were published internationally,
except one in Vietnam. The list started with the alphabetical letter of A as in abandoned and end
with the word shift. Words beginning with T, U, V, X, Y, and Z did not appear in the list. This can
be explained that the words starting with these letters might belong to the 2,000 general words list
(West, 1953) or their appearance in the corpus did not meet the cut score of 50% appearance to be
included in the list. A word family in the list contains a stem and related affixed forms. For example,
the word acquire is the stem and its related ones are acquires, acquired, and acquisition. Generally,
the list covers all the important words that are relevant to the field of English language teaching.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Despite the fact that a number of word lists have been created in various disciplines and
that ELT has a long-standing history since the 15th century, no word list has ever been made to
reflect the specialized features of ELT. Given the fact that ELT is a popular field due to the necessity
of English in the globalization age, the current study was an attempt to create this specific list to
serve the purpose of teaching and learning English. More specifically, the aim of the study is to
better learning and application of academic words in English learning and teaching. This corpus-
based study created an academic word list for the specific field of ELT, based on a corpus of
702,828 running words. The word analysis was run by Range, a software provided by Victoria
University of Wellington, New Zealand. The program has been testified its efficiency and
reliability in various studies through time (e.g. Klinmanee & Sopprasong, 1997; Laufer &
Paribakht, 1998; Nation & Wang, 1999; Coxhead, 2000; Nation & DeWeerdt, 2002; Hyland & Tse,
2007; Ge, 2008; Ward, 2009; Li & Qian, 2010; Yang, 2015). The result of the current study reveals
an analysis of 562 word families which constitute the list of 665 words as a word family includes
a stem, its inflections and affixes.
As close look at the word list for ELT shows that the list contains words starting with
abandoned to shift. Some word families have all forms but some do not due to their range of
appearance in the corpus under study. Generally, the words are related to English teaching, learning,

128
lesson planning, language assessment, classroom management, the role of teachers and students
among many other themes (for more information, see appendix 1).
The list can serve as a frame of reference that provides guidelines for curriculum
preparation and designing books for ELT with regards to the number of words or what words to be
enlisted in teaching and learning materials. More specifically, textbooks in ELT should cover part
or all the 665 words related in ELT as attached in the appendix. The number of words can be spread
out into different levels. For example, level one includes one hundred words of the list and level 6
comprises 100 words. Besides, the list can serve to inform course designers in designing materials,
selecting texts and developing learning activities in the specific field of ELT. Course designers can
search for reading materials that cover the words in the ELT academic word list.
As for teachers, the list can serve as an objective in teaching if teachers want students to
enlarge or master their academic vocabulary related to ELT. For example, when students have to
do research or projects, teachers can request them to use the words in the ELT word list to facilitate
them to acquire the words related to their field of study. In reading, teachers can ask students to
underline the academic words that appear in the class readings or materials and try to figure out
the meanings of the words in context. Awareness of the word lists would help teachers pay more
attention in using the words in giving lectures to students. The use of these words by teachers
would help teachers to remember the words longer and create meaningful input of academic words
for ELT to students.
As for learners, the word list for ELT can assist students in both more efficient
comprehension and more appropriate use of academic words when reading, writing academic texts
or papers, and doing academic presentations related to their field of study. When knowing the ELT
academic words, students will recognize these words if they come across them in class or course
readings. This will benefit the receptive vocabulary learning process of students. In the productive
way of learning, when using some of the words in the ELT word list to write an academic paper or
do an academic presentation, students will develop their productive knowledge of the academic
vocabulary in ELT. Besides, this academic word list for ELT emphasizes the vocabulary goals for
language courses, thus, it can guide learners in their independent study. As the list emphasizes the
words that students of the field of ELT will encounter in academic texts, they can set the foundation
for their studying either by themselves or with teachers at university. From the list, learners can
know the stem word and its inflections as well as affixes. They can enlarge their vocabulary size

129
by examining the related words in a word family. However, the list should not be used for
memorization in a decontextualized way. Memorizing every single word in the list is not an
effective way to develop vocabulary knowledge. Students should be aware of the list and refer to
it to know whether a word family related to ELT has word members or not. This awareness helps
them to pay more attention to the inclusion or appearance of the academic words for ELT in
academic readings as well as try to use them in their writing and discussions about related topics
in their studies.
The results of this study indicate that developing a word list can be done by adopting the
two criteria of the range and frequency in selecting academic words from a corpus in a certain
discipline. Even though the size of the corpus is reasonably large with 702,828 running words, to
obtain a more comprehensive word list in ELT, a larger corpus which incorporates both books and
articles from journals in this field is recommended.
Apparently, Range software is an effective tool for corpus-based studies, more specifically
those related to vocabulary in selecting and compiling words for analysis. However, it would be
more useful for users if information of such factors as size of corpus, materials for a corpus, and
images of how to process the corpus are provided in the instruction of how to use the software to
support users for independent analysis of vocabulary as well as conducting similar studies.

References
Ahmed, M. 0. (1989). Vocabulary learning strategies. In P. Meara (Ed.), Beyond words: Papers
from the Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics (pp. 3-14).
London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Learning.
Akbari, Z., & Tahririan, M.H. (2009). Vocabulary learning strategies in an ESP context: The case
of paramedical English in Iran. Asian ESP Journal, 11 (1), 39-61.
Asgari, A., & Mustapha, G.B. (2011). The type of vocabulary learning strategies used by ESL
students in university in Malaysia. English Language Teaching, 4 (2), 84- 90.
Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Font, G., Tereshinski, C. A., Kame’enui, E. J., & Olejnik, S. (2002).
Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth-grade students. Reading Research
Quarterly, 37(2), 150-176.
Baumann, J. F., & Graves, M. F. (2010). What is academic vocabulary?. Journal of Adolescent &

130
 Adult Literacy, 54(1), 4-12.
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in
primary vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44-62.
Bramki, D., & Williams, R. C. (1984). Lexical familiarization in economics text, and its pedagogic
implications in reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 2(1), 169-181.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language teaching and learning. New York: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Burgess, C., & Livesay, K. (1998). The effect of corpus size in predicting reaction time in a basic
word recognition task: Moving on from Kučera and Francis. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 30(2), 272-277.
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., et al. (2004).
Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual
and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188-215.
Chung, T., & Nation, P. (2003). Technical vocabulary in specialized texts. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 5(2), 103-116
Corson, D. (1997). The learning and use of academic English words. Language learning, 47(4),
671-718.
Coxhead, A. (1998). An academic word list (Vol. 18). School of Linguistics and Applied Language
Studies.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL quarterly, 34(2), 213-238.
Coxhead, A., & Nation, I. S. P. (2001). The specialized vocabulary of English for academic
purposes. In J. Flowerdew, & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for
academic purposes (pp. 252-267). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Dang, T. N. Y., Coxhead, A., & Webb, S. (2017). The Academic Spoken Word List. Language
Learning, 67(4), 959-997.
Desiana, T. A. (2014). Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Students in Economic International
Program (Doctoral dissertation, Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris FBS-UKSW).
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning
outcomes. Language learning, 46(4), 643-679.
Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of English language teaching. London/New York.
Hess, N. (2007). Teaching large multilevel classes. Ernst Klett Sprachen.

131
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an ‘‘academic vocabulary”? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 235–
254
Khani, R., & Saeedi, M. (2017). Material Development and English for Academic Purposes Word
Lists; a Reductionist Approach. Journal of English Language Teaching and
Learning, 9(19), 53-72.
Klinmanee, N. & Sopprasong, L. (1997 ). Bridging the vocabulary gap between secondary school
and university: A Thai case study. Guidelines, 19(1), 1-10.
KojicSabo, I., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Students' approaches to vocabulary learning and their
relationship to success. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 176-192.
Laufer, B. & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies:
Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48(3), 365-391.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University.
Lei, L., & Liu, D. (2016). A new medical academic word list: A corpus-based study with enhanced
methodology. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 42-53.
Li, Y., & Qian, D. D. (2010). Profiling the Academic Word List (AWL) in a financial
corpus. System, 38(3), 402-411.
Liu, J., & Han, L. (2015). A corpus-based environmental academic word list building and its
validity test. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 1-11.
Martínez, I. A., Beck, S. C., & Panza, C. B. (2009). Academic vocabulary in agriculture research
articles: A corpus-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 183-198.
Marzano, R. J. (2004). Essential knowledge: The debate over what American students know.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Mukoroli, J. (2011). Effective vocabulary teaching strategies for the English for academic purposes
ESL classroom.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2005). Range Program with GSL/AWL List. Retrieved from
www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paul-nation/rangeprogramwithGSL/AWLlist.zip
Nation, I. S. P. & DeWeerdt, J. P. (2002). A defence of simplification. Prospect: Australian Journal
of TESOL, 16(3), 55-67.
Nation, I. S. P. & Wang, K. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language,

132
 12(2), 355-380.
Nguyen, B; Bui, L. C.; Truong, V.D; Ho, T. M. H; Nguyen, H; Bao, K; Phan, T. B. N; Truong, V.
(2003). BA upgrade: English language teaching methodology. Hanoi: Ministry of
Education and Training.
Le Thi Cam Nguyen, & Nation, P. (2011). A bilingual vocabulary size test of English for
Vietnamese learners. RELC Journal, 42(1), 86-99.
NR, M. N., Stapa, S. H., & Darus, S. (2013). Developing a Specialized Vocabulary Word List in a
Composition Culinary Course through Lecture Notes. Advances in Language and Literary
Studies, 4(1), 78-88.
Nushi, M., & Jenabzadeh, H. (2016). Teaching and Learning Academic Vocabulary. California
Linguistic Notes, 40, 2.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. NY: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. (2012). A brief history of ELT. Available at
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/a-short-history-elt. Accessed December, 2017.
Sibold, C. (2011). Building English language learners' academic vocabulary: strategies &
tips. Multicultural Education, 18(2), 24.
Stahl, S., & Fairbanks, M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72-110.
Thurstun, J., & Candlin, C. N. (1998). Concordancing and the teaching of the vocabulary of
academic English. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 267-280.
Ur, P. (1999). A course in language teaching. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Vongpumivitch, V., Huang, J., & Chang, Y. (2009). Frequency analysis of the words in the
Academic Word List (AWL) and non-AWL content words in applied linguistics research
papers. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 33-41.
Xue, G. & Nation, I. S. P. (1984). A university word list. Language Learning and Communication,
3(2), 215- 219.
Wang, J., Liang, S. L., & Ge, G. C. (2008). Establishment of a medical academic word list. English
for Specific Purposes, 27(4), 442-458.
Ward, J. (2009). A basic engineering English word list for less proficient foundation engineering
undergraduates. English for Specific Purposes, 28(3), 170-182.
West, M. P. (1953). A General Service List of English Words. With Semantic Frequencies and

133
 Asupplementary Word-list for the Writing of Popular Science and Technology. Compiled
and Edited by M. West.(Revised and Enlarged Edition.). Longmans, Green & Company.
Yang, M. N. (2015). A nursing academic word list. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 27-38.

134
 APPENDIX 1: AN ACADEMIC WORD LIST FOR ELT
ABANDONED ABSTRACT ACADEMIC ACCESS
ACCESSES ACCESSIBLE ACCOMPANIED ACCOMPANYING
ACCURACY ACCURATE ACCURATELY ACHIEVE
CHIEVES ACHIEVED ACHIEVEMENT ACHIEVING
ACKNOWLEDGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACQUIRE ACQUIRES
ACQUIRED ACQUISITION ADAPT ADAPTS
ADAPTATION ADAPTED ADAPTING ADEQUATE
ADEQUATELY ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR ADULTS
AFFECT AFFECTS AFFECTED AFFECTING
AFFECTIVE AFFECTS AID AIDS
ALTER ALTERS ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVELY
ANALYSE ANALYSES ANALYSIS ANALYZING
ANNUAL ANTICIPATE ANTICIPATES ANTICIPATED
ANTICIPATION APPARENT APPARENTLY APPRECIATE
APPRECIATES APPRECIATION APPROACH APPROACHES
APPROACHED APPROACHING APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATELY
APPROPRIATENES APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATELY ARBITRARY
S
AREA ASPECTS ASSESS ASSESSES
ASSESSED ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSIGN
ASSIGNS ASSIGNED ASSIGNING ASSIGNMENT
ASSIST ASSISTS ASSISTANCE ASSUME
ASSUMES ASSUMED ASSUMING ASSUMPTION
ATTACH ATTACHES ATTACHED ATTITUDE
ATTRIBUTE AUTHOR AUTHORITY AUTOMATICALL
Y
AVAILABILITY AVAILABLE AWARE AWARENESS
BENEFICIAL BENEFIT BRIEF BRIEFLY
CAPACITY CATEGORY CHALLENGE CHALLENGES
CHALLENGED CHALLENGING CHANNEL CHAPTER
CHART CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE CITED
CLARIFICATION CLARIFY CLARITY CLASSIC
CLAUSE CODE COHERENCE COHERENT
COLLEAGUE COMMENT COMMENTS COMMENTED
COMMENTING COMMITMENT COMMITTED COMMUNICATE
COMMUNICATES COMMUNICATING COMMUNICATIO COMMUNICATIV
N E
COMMUNICATIVE COMMUNITY COMPENSATE COMPILE
LY
COMPLEMENT COMPLEMENTARY COMPLEX COMPLEXITY
COMPONENT COMPONENT COMPOUND COMPRISE

135
COMPRISES COMPUTER COMPUTER CONCENTRATE
CONCENTRATES CONCENTRATING CONCENTRATIO CONCEPT
N
CONCEPTUAL CONCLUDE CONCLUDES CONCLUSION
CONDUCT CONDUCTED CONDUCTING CONFERENCE
CONFIRM CONFIRMS CONSENSUS CONSEQUENCE
CONSIDERABLE CONSIDERABLY CONSIST CONSISTS
CONSISTED CONSISTENT CONSISTENTLY CONSISTING
CONSTANT CONSTANTLY CONSTITUTE CONSTRAINT
CONSTRUCT CONSTRUCTS CONSTRUCTED CONSTRUCTING
CONSTRUCTION CONSULT CONTACT CONTEMPORARY
CONTEXT CONTEXTUAL CONTRACT CONTRARY
CONTRAST CONTRASTING CONTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTED
CONTRIBUTES CONTRIBUTING CONTRIBUTION CONTROVERSIA
L
CONVENTION CONVERSE CONVERSELY CONVINCE
CONVINCES CONVINCED CONVINCING COOPERATE
COOPERATION COOPERATIVE COOPERATIVELY CORE
CORRESPOND COUPLE COUPLED CREATE
CREATES CREATED CREATING CREATION
CREATIVE CREATIVELY CREATIVITY CREDIT
CRITERIA CRITERION CRUCIAL CULTURAL
CULTURALLY CULTURE CYCLE DATA
DEBATE DEFINE DEFINES DEFINED
DEFINING DEFINITE DEFINITION DEFINITIONS
DEMONSTRATE DEMONSTRATES DEMONSTRATED DEMONSTRATIO
N
DENOTE DERIVE DERIVES DERIVED
DESIGN DESIGNED DESIGNING DESPITE
DEVICE DEVOTE DEVOTED DIMENSION
DISCRETE DISCRIMINATE DISCRIMINATES DISCRIMINATION
DISPLAY DISPLAYED DISTINCT DISTINCTION
DISTINCTIVE DISTRIBUTE DISTRIBUTES DISTRIBUTED
DIVERSE DOCUMENT DOMINATE DRAFT
DRAFTING DRAMA DRAMATIC DYNAMIC
DYNAMICS ECONOMIC EDIT EDITS
EDITED EDITING EDITION EDITIONS
EDITOR ELEMENT EMERGE EMERGED
EMERGES EMPHASIS EMPHASIZE ENABLE
ENABLING ENCOUNTER ENCOUNTERED ENERGY
ENHANCE ENHANCED ENORMOUS ENSURE
ENVIRONMENT EQUIPMENT EQUIVALENT ERROR
ESTABLISH ESTABLISHES ESTABLISHED ESTABLISHING

136
ESTABLISHMENT ETHNIC EVALUATE EVALUATES
EVALUATED EVALUATING EVALUATION EVENTUALLY
EVIDENCE EVIDENT EXCLUSIVELY EXPAND
EXPANDS EXPANDED EXPANDING EXPANSION
EXPERT EXPLICIT IMPLICITS EXPLICITLY
EXPLOITED EXPOSE EXPOSES EXPOSED
EXPOSURE EXTERNAL EXTRACT FACILITATE
FACILITATED FACILITATOR FACILITY FACTOR
FEATURE FILE FINAL FINALLY
FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBLE FOCUS FOCUSES
FOCUSED FOCUSING FORMAT FORMULA
FORMULATE FORTHCOMING FOUNDATION FRAMEWORK
FUNCTION FUNCTIONAL FUNDAMENTAL GENERATE
GENERATES GENERATED GENERATION GLOBAL
GOAL GRADE GRADED GRADING
GRANT GRANTED GUIDELINE HENCE
HIERARCHY HIGHLIGHT HYPOTHESIS HYPOTHETICAL
IDENTIFIABLE IDENTIFIED IDENTIFY IDENTIFIES
IDENTIFYING IDENTITY IGNORE IGNORED
IGNORING ILLUSTRATE ILLUSTRATES ILLUSTRATED
ILLUSTRATION ILLUSTRATIVE IMAGE IMMIGRANT
IMPACT IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTING IMPLICATION
IMPLICIT IMPLIES IMPOSED INACCURATE
INADEQUATE INAPPROPRIATE INCORPORATE INCORPORATED
INDEX INDICATE INDICATES INDICATED
INDICATE INDICATING INDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUALLY
INEVITABLE INEVITABLY INFERENCES INHERENT
INITIAL INITIATE INITIATED INITIATIVE
INNOVATION INNOVATIVE INPUT INSERT
INSIGHT INSTANCE INSTITUTE INSTITUTION
INSTRUCTION INSTRUCTOR INTEGRAL INTEGRATE
INTEGRATES INTEGRATED INTEGRATING INTEGRATION
INTELLIGENCE INTELLIGENT INTENSIVE INTERACT
INTERACTING INTERACTION INTERACTIVE INTERMEDIATE
INTERNAL INTERPRET INTERPRETATION INTERPRETED
INTERVENE INTERVENING INTRINSICALLY INVEST
INVESTIGATE INVESTIGATES INVESTIGATING INVESTIGATION
INVESTMENT INVOLVE INVOLVED INVOLVEMENT
INVOLVING IRRELEVANT ISOLATED ISOLATION
ISSUE ITEM JOB JOURNAL
JUSTIFY LABEL LECTURE LINK
LINKED LINKING LOCATION LOGIC
LOGICAL LOGICALLY MAINTAIN MAINTAINS

137
MAINTAINING MAJOR MAJORITY MANIPULATE
MARGIN MATURITY MAXIMUM MEDIA
MEDIATE MEDIUM MENTAL METHOD
METHODOLOGIC METHODOLOGY MINIMAL MINIMUM
AL
MINOR MINORITY MODE MODIFY
MONITOR MONITORING MOTIVATE MOTIVATED
MOTIVATING MOTIVATION MUTUAL NEGATIVE
NEGATIVELY NETWORK NEUTRAL NEVERTHELESS
NORMAL NORMALLY NOTION OBJECTIVE
OBTAIN OBTAINED OBVIOUS OBVIOUSLY
OCCUPATION OCCUPY OCCUPIED OCCUR
OCCURRED OCCURRENCE ODD ONGOING
OPTION OPTIONAL OPTIONS OUTCOME
OUTPUT OVERALL OVERLAP PARAGRAPH
PARALLEL PARTICIPANT PARTICIPATE PARTICIPATING
PARTICIPATION PARTNER PASSIVE PERCEIVE
PERCEIVED PERCENT PERCENTAGE PERCEPTION
PERIOD PERSPECTIVE PHASE PHENOMENON
PHILOSOPHICAL PHILOSOPHY PHYSICAL PLUS
POLICIES POLICY POSE POSED
POSITIVE POSITIVELY POTENTIAL POTENTIALLY
PRACTITIONER PRECEDE PRECEDED PRECEDING
PRECISELY PREDICT PREDICTS PREDICTABLE
PREDICTED PREDICTING PREDICTION PREVIOUS
PREVIOUSLY PRIMARILY PRIMARY PRINCIPAL
PRINCIPLE PRIOR PRIORITY PROCEDURE
PROCEED PROCEEDING PROCESS PROCESSES
PROCESSING PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL PROJECT
PROMOTE PROMOTING PSYCHOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY
PUBLICATION PUBLISH PUBLISHED PUBLISHER
PUBLISHING PURSUE RANDOM RANGE
RANGING REACT REACTING REACTION
RECONSTRUCT REGIONAL REGISTER REINFORCE
REINFORCE REINFORCEMENT REJECT RELAX
RELAXED RELEVANCE RELEVANT RELIABLE
RELIANCE RELUCTANT RELY REMOVE
REMOVED REQUIRE REQUIRED REQUIREMENT
REQUIRES RESEARCH RESEARCHER RESOURCE
RESOURCE RESPOND RESPONDED RESPONDING
RESPONSE RESPONSES RESTRICTED RETENTION
REVEAL REVEALED REVEALING REVERSE
REVERSED REVISE REVISED REVISING

138
REVISION ROLE SCHEDULE SCHEME
SECTION SECURE SECURITY SEEK
SEEKING SELECT SELECTED SELECTION
SEQUENCE SEQUENCING SERIES SEX
SHIFT

139
 The Effects of Self-Efficacy Belief, Motivation, and Learning Strategies on
Students’ Academic Performance in English in Higher Education

Sukardi Weda
Universitas Negeri Makassar

Iskandar Abdul Samad

Universitas Syiah Kuala

Andi Anto Patak

Universitas Negeri Makassar

Siti Sarah Fitriani

Univeritas Syiah Kuala

Bioprofiles:
Sukardi Weda is the head of English Literature Study Program, Faculty of Languages and
Literature Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia. His research interests include Linguistics,
Applied Linguistics, English, L2 motivation, study anxiety, self-efficacy belief, learning strategies,
phonology, education, management, social and cultural issues, etc. He has a Ph.D in Linguistics:
English Language Studies (ELS) from Hasanuddin University in 2005. He can be reached at
sukardi.weda@unm.ac.id

Iskandar Abdul Samad is an alumnus of University of New England (UNE), Australia. His
research interest is in language teaching methods and approaches, including the use of genre
approach for teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and communicative language teaching.
Before completing his Ph.D. at UNE, he had completed his Master’s degree in Applied Linguistics
at Macquarie University, Australia in 2007. He can be reached at
iskandar.abdul.samad@gmail.com.

140
Andi Anto Patak is an English lecturer at English Department, Faculty of Languages and
Literature. His research interest is in applied linguistics, including language assessment, academic
integrity, and psycholinguistics. He has been teaching English since 2004. He has been active
presenting his papers at some International Conferences. He got published in some reputable
publishers. He can be reached at andiantopatak@unm.ac.id.

Siti Sarah Fitriani is an alumnus of University of New England (UNE), Australia. Her research
interest is in language teaching methods and approaches, including the use of genre approach for
teaching a Foreign Language (EFL), especially metacognition, and communicative language
teaching. Before taking her Ph.D. candidacy at UNE, she had completed her Master's degree in
Applied Linguistics at Macquarie University (MQ), Australia. She can be reached at
ssfitriani@gmail.com.

Abstract:
This study examines whether self-efficacy belief, motivation, and learning strategies
correlate to students’ academic performance in English at higher education in Indonesia. One
hundred and twenty-five undergraduate students of English Literature Study Program of Faculty
of Languages and Literature Universitas Negeri Makassar and students of graduate program of
English education (TEFL) participated in this study. There were 89 or 71.2% females and 36 or
28.8% males. Students were administered a questionnaire consisting of three important key topics:
self-efficacy belief, motivation, and learning strategies. The student’s age, sex, study program,
semester, and GPA were assessed at the beginning of the questionnaire. The results of this study
show that there was a significant relationship between self-efficacy belief and students’ academic
performance, motivation and students’ academic performance, and learning strategies and students’
academic performance at State University of Makassar (Universitas Negeri Makassar/UNM).

Keywords: Self-efficacy, motivation, learning strategy, academic performance

Introduction
Some psychological factors like self-efficacy belief, motivation, and learning strategies
contribute to the successfulness of the learning process and academic performance. Many research

141
reports indicate that self–efficacy belief enhances the success in academic performance (Bandura
& Schunk, 1981; Bandura & Carnove, 1983; Bandura, 1993; Zimmermen, Bandura, & Martinez-
Pons, 1992; Bandura & Locke, 2003; Bandura, et al, 1996; Bandura, et al, 1999; Sherer, Mark &
Maddux, J.E, 1982; Caprara, et al., 2008; Zimmerman, 2000; and Pajares, 2003).
Other than self-efficacy belief, motivation is also a vital factor in improving students’
learning outcomes. Some research findings reveal that motivation has a correlation to students’
achievement or academic performances (Pajares, 2003; LIbao, et al., 2016; Wilson & Trainin, 2007;
Mali, Yustinus Calvin Gai, 2015; Nasihah & Cahyono, 2017; Cocca, et al., 2018).
The findings of some researches also suggest that learning strategies (LSs) contribute to
the improvement of students’ performance (Nasihah & Cahyono, 2017; Weda, 2005).
Self-efficacy, motivation, and strategies are primary factors in improving students’ foreign
language (FL) and second language (L2) competence. Integrating those factors and language
learning become desired system by language practitioners and learners. The basic assumption of
this system is that students make efforts to study L2 to narrow the gap between their current status
and the desired future self (Isatayeva, et al, 2018: 147).

Review of Literature
Self-Efficacy Belief
People’s beliefs in their efficacy influence the types of anticipatory scenarios they construct and
rehearse. Those who have a high sense of efficacy visualize success scenarios that provide positive
guides and supports for performance (Bandura, 1993: 118). Bandura therefore argues that people
who have a low sense of efficacy in a given domain shy away from difficult tasks, which they
perceive as personal threats. They have low aspirations and weak commitment to the goals they
choose to pursue (Bandura, 1993: 144). Self-efficacy is predicted to enhance human
accomplishment and well-being in many ways (Bandura in Schunk and Pajares, 1999: 37-38, as
revealed in table 1.

Table 1. Effects of Self-Efficacy (Schunk & Pajares, 1999: 37)

• Motivation (Task choice, effort, persistence
• Learning
• Self-regulation

142
 • Achievement

Schunck and Pajare (1999: 38) argue that self-efficacy also helps determine how much
effort people will expend on an activity, how long they will persevere when confronting obstacles,
and how resilient they will be in the face of adverse situations. They further say that people with a
strong sense of efficacy are apt to approach difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered rather than
as threats to be avoided. Self-efficacy can influence the choices people make and the courses of
action they pursue (Schunk and Pajares, 1999: 37).
Bandura (1993: 145) reveals that a strong sense of efficacy enhances personal
accomplishment in many ways. He further adds that people with high efficacy approach difficult
tasks as challenges to be mastered rather than as threats to be avoided. Perceived self-efficacy,
instated symbolically, predicts well the pattern of performance successes and failures on specific
tasks (Bandura and Schunk, 1981: 597). Self-efficacy and goals in combination contribute to
subsequent academic attainments (Zimmerman, et al, 1992: 674). Self-efficacy is therefore defined
as the belief in one’s capabilities to carry out, organize and perform a task successfully (Ersanli,
Ceylan Yangin, 2015: 472).

Motivation
One of the successfulness determinants in learning a second language (L2) or a foreign
language (FL) is motivation. Piniel and Csizér (2013: 525) state that second language motivation
studies have been traditionally at the forefront of English applied linguistics research in the past
decades, as motivation is considered to be one of the most important individual differences (ID)
variables contributing to the success of second language learning. Trang, Moni & Baldauf (Weda,
2018: 718) reveal that there are a variety of factors that might influence foreign language learning
faced by a number of students when learning a foreign language; attitude, motivation, anxiety, and
beliefs. Of these affective factors, motivation has been given much attention (Weda & Sakti, 2018:
718). A lot of attention is given to the issue of increasing motivation, maintaining and developing
students' interest in Foreign Language both in methodology and in the psychology of teaching the
subject (Selivanova, et al, 2018: 220).

143
 The motivation issue has been discussed by scholars in second/foreign language contexts
(Yulia, 2013: 4). Considering motivation as the most important force in the process of mastering a
foreign language, which ensures its effectiveness, it should be borne in mind that motivation is a
part of the personal universe of a student and it is determined by his own ambitions, preferences,
and requirements (Selivanova, Ogla G, et al, 2018: 219).
Dӧrnyei & Ushioda (2011: 5-6) argue that a history debate within the educational field as
to whether motivation is primarily a ‘cause’ or ‘effect’ of learning, with the general consensus now
being that it functions in a cyclical relationship with learning. They therefore theorized it in terms
of positive cycles of ‘high motivation high achievement high motivation,’
or negative cycles of ‘low motivation low achievement low motivation.
Motivation to do something usually evolves gradually, through a complex mental process
that involves initial planning and goal setting, intention formation, task generation, action
implementation, and action control and outcome evaluation (Dӧrnyei & Ushioda (2011: 6).
Motivation is evident in beliefs, behaviors, and aff ect, processes that co-occur and are probably
reciprocal (Turner & Meyer, 1999: 527).
Dӧrnyei & Ottó’s (Dӧrnyei & Ushioda, 2011: 6) define motivation as dynamically
changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates,
and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are selected,
prioritized, operationalized and (successfully or unsuccessfully) acted out.
Harmer (1991: 3) reveals that motivation is some kind of internal drive that encourages
somebody to pursue a course of action. He further adds that there are two main types of such
motivation, integrative motivation and instrumental motivation. Instrumental motivation drives the
learner to acquire another language for money, career, or power and integrative motivation, on the
other hand, arises out of a desire to identify with the culture or community that speaks the language
(Nunan & Lamb, 1996: 209-210).
Brown (1994: 152) defines motivation as an inner drive, impulse, emotion, or desire that
moves one to a particular action. Motivation is also typically examined regarding the intrinsic and
extrinsic orientation of the learner (Brown, 1994: 153).

Learning Strategies
Oxford (Weda, 2005: 3) argues that in the field of language research, the learning strategy

144
has been a notable area of growth in recent years. However, not much has been reported on the
range and types of language learning strategies in Indonesia, and very little work on the use of
English language learning strategy has done so far in the Indonesian context (Weda, 2005: 3).
Several definitions of learning strategies (LSs) have been written by leading authors in the
second (L2) and English as a foreign language (EFL), among others is: Oxford (1989, 1990, 2003),
Rubin (1975), and O’Maley & Chamot (1995).
Language learning strategies are behaviors or actions which learners use to make language
learning more successful, self-directed, and enjoyable. For simplicity’s sake, we will use the term
“language learning strategies” about more formal language learning and less formal language
acquisition; learning strategies are relevant to both (Oxford, 1989: 235). Nasihah & Cahyono (2017:
251) argue that language learning strategies (LLSs) are what learners do to learn language and
relate to their characteristics, learning skills, problem-solving skills, and learning achievement.
Oxford & Burry-Stock (1995: 5) present six strategies which so called Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning (SILL), those strategies are: (1) Memory. strategies, such as grouping,
imagery, rhyming, and structured reviewing (nine items), (2) Cognitive strategies, such as
reasoning, analyzing, summarizing (all reflective of deep processing), as well as general practicing
(14 items), (3) Compensation strategies (to compensate for limited knowledge), such as guessing
meanings from the context in reading and listening and using synonyms and gestures to convey
meaning when the precise expression is not known (six items), (4) Metacognitive strategies, such
as paying attention, consciously searching for practice opportunities, planning for language tasks,
self-evaluating one's progress, and monitoring error (nine items), (5) Affective (emotional,
motivation-related) strategies, such as anxiety reduction, self- encouragement, and self-reward (six
items), and (6) Social strategies, such as asking questions, cooperating with native speakers of the
language, and becoming culturally aware (six items). These six learning strategies can improve
students’ language competence which consists of structure, vocabulary and pronunciation and
language performance which consists of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, and therefore
they can have excellent academic performance as revealed in figure 1.

145
 Figure 1. Learning Strategies and Academic Performance

Many research findings reveal that self-efficacy belief, motivation, and learning strategies
have relationship upon academic performance. Ersanli, Ceylan Yangin (2015: 472) reveals that
language learning motivations of the students in terms of the education level of the parents indicate
a significant difference in students whose parents are more educated with those of less educated.
On the contrary, the students whose parents are university graduates have the lowest means
whereas those whose parents are primary school and secondary school graduates have much higher
self-efficacy. Ersali, Ceylan Yangin (2015: 473) argues that success in learning a foreign language
is determined by many factors among which self-efficacy beliefs and motivation levels of the
students play prior roles. Ersali, Ceyla Yangin (2015: 472) adds that self-efficacy and motivation
are the driving forces that make people pursue a goal and overcome obstacles because people with
higher self-efficacy and motivation do their best and do not easily give up when confronted with
difficulties. On the other hand, learning strategies are also vital determinant in language learning.
Many research reports that learning strategies determine the success of second language learning.
Language learning strategies are behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning

146
more successful, self-directed, and enjoyable (Oxford, Rebecca L, 1989: 235).
Therefore, the following is the theoretical model of self-efficacy belief, motivation, and
learning strategies upon academic performance. This means that the students’ academic
performance in the classroom setting is determined by students’ self-efficacy belief, motivation,
and the learning strategies that the students employ in the learning process.

Figure 3. Theoretical model of self-efficacy belief, motivation, and learning

strategies upon academic performance

Research Questions
This is an endeavor to make an intensive study of students’ self-efficacy belief, motivation, and
learning strategies in English. Therefore, it would be right to say that self-efficacy belief,
motivation, and learning strategies are crucial to learn. This is because, some problems emerge in
the field of English language teaching in Indonesia, from secondary schools to universities, those
problems are the low quality English teaching in the classroom setting, the low English proficiency
of secondary school and university graduates, and the demotivation of students to learn English as
a mandatory subject. The research questions of this study are postulated in detail as follows:
1. Is there a significant relationship between self-efficacy belief and students’ academic
performance in English at higher education?.
2. Is there a significant relationship between motivation and students’ academic performance in
English at higher education?

147
3. Is there a significant relationship between learning strategies and students’ academic
performance in English at higher education?

Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 125 students of the undergraduate program of English Literature
Study Program of Faculty of Languages and Literature Universitas Negeri Makassar and students
of the graduate program of English education (TEFL). There were 36 or (28.8%) males and 89 or
71.2% females as revealed in figure 2.

Research Participants

Graduate Program
28, 28%

72, 72% Undergraduate

Program

Figure 2. Research Participants

Instruments
Students were administered a questionnaire consisting of three important key topics:
self-efficacy belief, motivation, and learning strategies. The student’s name, age, sex, study
program, semester, and GPA were assessed at the beginning of the questionnaire. The remainder
of the questionnaire included: perceptions of the student’s self-efficacy belief (type of
instrumentality: 10 items adapted from Tuan, Chin, & Shieh, 2005), perceptions of the student’s
motivation (type of instrumentality: 15 items adapted from Brown, 2007 and Shia, 1998 in Nasihah
and Cahyono, 2017), and perceptions of the student’s learning strategy (type of instrumentality:
36 items adapted from Oxford, R, 1990). In this study, the students were asked to rate their
perception by choosing one of the following choices which reveal how much he or she agrees or
disagree by circling around. Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neither agree nor disagree (3),
agree (4), and strongly agree (5). Meanwhile, students’ academic performance was measured using
Grade Point Average (GPA). GPA is to measure students’ academic performance. The GPA was

148
obtained from the beginning of the questionnaire in which the students were asked to write down
their GPA. The classification of the academic performance level of some universities in Indonesia
justifies low academic performance is GPA < 3.0 and high is > 3.0. The interpretation of Self-
Efficacy Belief (SEB), Motivation (Mot), and Learning Strategies (LSs) and GPA level are
revealed in table 2, table 3, and table 4.

Table 2. Interpretation of GPA Level

SEB Score GPA Interpretation
50 > SEB 3.0 > GPA High
50 < SEB 3.0 < GPA Low

Table 3. Interpretation of GPA Level

Mot Score GPA Interpretation
75 > Mot 3.0 > GPA High
75 < Mot 3.0 < GPA Low

Table 4. Interpretation of GPA Level

LSs Score GPA Interpretation
180 > LSs 3.0 > GPA High
180 < LSs 3.0 < GPA Low

Data Analysis
Data were coded and analyzed using the SPSS with a priori set alpha level of 0.05. The
correlation of self-efficacy belief, motivation, and learning strategies upon academic performance
was examined by Pearson correlation. The significant coefficient and coefficient correlation are
examined to find out the results. The mean and Standard Deviation (SD) are also calculated using
descriptive statistics.

149
Results and Discussion
Demographic profile of participants

The demographic profile of participants is revealed in detail in table 2 as follows.

Table 5: Demographic of Participants

Demographic Information Frequency Percentage
Gender
1. Female 89 71.2
2. Male 36 28.8
Major
1. English 64 51.2
Literature
(Semester 2) 26 20.8

2. English 35 28
Literature
(Semester 6)
3. TEFL (Graduate
Program)
Age
1. 17 – 20 82 65.6
2. 21 – 29 41 32.8
3. ≥ 30 2 1.6

Self-efficacy belief test scores of English students

The scale that was used to measure test of self-efficacy belief was reliable, with a Cronbach’s
alpha value of 0.7 (table 6). The means and standard deviations of students’ perception on self-
efficacy belief test scores of English students are displayed in table 6.
The findings are indicating that the students achieved a mean of 3.9120 and SD = .68411
for Self-efficacy belief/SEB-1. They achieved a mean of 2.7520 and SD = .72575 for SEB-2. The
students achieved a mean of 3.6480 and SD = .74331 for SEB-3. The students achieved a mean of
1.9600 and SD = .78699 for SEB-4. Therefore, means and SD for SEB-5 to SP-10 are clearly
stated on table 6. Finally, a normal distribution can be observed for all scales in the present study
as revealed by skewness and kurtosis value as presented in table 6.
Approximately 76.8% of students revealed experiencing with the statement “Whether the

150
English learning topics is difficult or easy, I am sure that I can understand it.” Approximately
14.4% of students experienced some level of I am not confident about understanding difficult
English learning topics. Approximately 61.6% of students indicated experiencing to the statement
“I am sure that I can do well on English tests,” Approximately 5.6% of students exhibited to the
statement “No matter how much effort I put in, I cannot learn English well.” There were 16.8% of
students exhibited to the statement “ When activities in English subject are too difficult, I give up
or only do the easy parts.’ There were 20.8% of students experiencing with the statement “During
activities in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom, I prefer to ask my friends for the
answers rather than thinking of myself.” Furthermore, 4.8% of the students indicated that they
exhibited to the statement “When I find the contents or the topics in English difficult, I do not try
to learn it.” There were 87.2% of the students revealed that they exhibited to the statement “I
encourage myself to succeed in English.” There were 73.6% of the students experiencing that he
or she behaves to try to learn all difficult topics or materials in English. Finally, approximately
70.4% of the students revealed that he or she is convinced that he or she can maintain
communication well in English with her friends and lecturers.

Table 6. Self-efficacy belief test scores of English students (N= 125)

Code 3 4 5
M SD Skewness Kurtosis 1 (%) 2 (%)
(%) (%) (%)
SEB-1 3.9120 .68411 -.348 .308 0 2.4 20.8 60.0 16.8
SEB-2 2.7520 .72575 .032 -.453 2.4 34.4 34.4 14.4 0
SEB-3 3.6480 .74331 -.283 -.103 0 6.4 32.0 52.0 9.6
SEB-4 1.9600 .78699 .777 .626 27.2 55.2 12.0 5.6 0
SEB-5 2.5040 .96406 .318 -.475 13.6 40.8 28.8 15.2 1.6
SEB-6 2.6000 .92457 .137 -.918 9.6 41.6 28.0 20.8 0
SEB-7 1.8560 .69217 1.088 2.528 27.2 64.8 3.2 4.8 0
SEB-8 4.2080 .91841 -1.633 3.292 3.2 2.4 7.2 44.8 42.4
SEB-9 3.9040 .70051 -.152 -.256 0 1.6 24.8 55.2 18.4
SEB-10 3.7760 .64588 -.299 .297 0 2.4 27.2 60.8 9.6

151
Motivation Test Scores of English Students
The scale that was used to measure test of motivation (Mot) was reliable, with a Cronbach’s
alpha value of 0.7 (table 7). The means and standard deviations of students’ perception on
motivation test scores of English students are displayed in table 7.
The research findings illustrate that the students achieved a mean of 4.2800 and SD = .59024
for Motivation/Mot-1. They achieved a mean of 4.2800 and SD = .70253 for Mot-2. The students
achieved a mean of 4.2000 and SD = .62217 for Mot-3. The students achieved a mean of 3.4480
and SD = .72352 for Mot-4. The students achieved a mean of 4.4240 and SD = .67518 for Mot-5.
They achieved a mean of 3.9520 and SD = 84104 for Mot-6. They achieved a mean of 3.9600 and
SD = 73397 for Mot-7. The students achieved a mean of 3.6640 and SD = .70647 for Mot-8.
Therefore, means and SD for Mot-9 to SP-15 are clearly stated on table 7. Finally, a normal
distribution can be observed for all scales in the present study as revealed by skewness and kurtosis
value as presented in table 7.
Approximately 92.8% of students revealed experiencing with the statement “I want to learn all
topics in English I need to learn.” Approximately 87.2% of students experienced to the statement
“I have high expectation of myself to succeed in English.” Approximately 88.8% of students
experiencing to the statement “I feel good when I complete difficult tasks in EFL classroom.”
Approximately 43.2% of students exhibited to the statement “I work best in group discussion.”
There were 92.8% of students exhibited to the statement “I learn English for my future careers.”
There were 82.4% of students experiencing with the statement “No matter how much I like or
dislike a lecturer, I still try to learn from him.” There were 83.2% of the students exhibited to the
statement “No matter how much I like or dislike a topic, I still try to learn from it.” There were
63.2% of the students revealed to the statement “I feel that I should be recognized by my friends
when demonstrating abilities in front of the EFL classroom.” There were 64% of the students
experiencing that he or she feels more accepted by my friends and a lecturer when obtaining
excellent score on a test or drill. Approximately 52.2% of the students stated that he or she
completed his or her task and homework assignment because his or her teacher frequently gives
reinforcement (rewards). 60.8% of the students revealed that he or she feels ashamed when
obtaining low score in a test or drill. 23.2% of the students stated that he or she gets nervous when
his or her lecturer asks questions to him or her. There were approximately 90.4% of the students
revealed that he or she tries to do the best in the classroom. There were 52.4% of the students said

152
that he or she often feels nervous when he or she takes a quiz, mid-term test, and final-term test,
and approximately 41.6% of the students revealed that even when he or she has studied for hours,
he or she feels that he or she has no enough preparation for a test or a quiz.

Table 7. Motivation test scores of English students (N= 125)

Code 4 5
M SD Skewness Kurtosis 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%)
(%) (%)
Mot-1 4.2800 .59024 -.161 -.534 0 0 7.2 57.6 35.2
Mot-2 4.2800 .70253 -.595 -.238 0 .8 12.0 45.6 41.6
Mot-3 4.2000 .62217 -.163 -.525 0 0 11.2 57.6 31.2
Mot-4 3.4480 .72352 .119 .537 .8 4.0 52.0 36.0 7.2
Mot-5 4.4240 .67518 -1.077 1.266 0 1.6 5.6 41.6 51.2
Mot-6 3.9520 .84104 -1.314 2.754 2.4 4.0 11.2 60.8 21.6
Mot-7 3.9600 .73397 -1.057 2.474 .8 4.0 12.0 64.8 18.4
Mot-8 3.6640 .70647 -.532 1.063 .8 3.2 32.8 55.2 8.0
Mot-9 3.7120 .68174 -.342 1.128 .8 .8 34.4 54.4 9.6
Mot-10 3.4480 .88405 -.587 .487 3.2 8.8 36.0 44.0 8.0
Mot-11 3.5120 .93856 -.481 -.576 .8 18.4 20.0 50.4 10.4
Mot-12 2.8800 .90340 .241 -.219 4.0 31.2 41.6 19.2 4.0
Mot-13 4.2080 .62600 -.382 .381 0 .8 8.8 59.2 31.2
Mot-14 3.4240 .89139 -.392 -.230 1.6 14.4 32.0 44.0 8.0
Mot-15 3.4720 2.06185 8.040 80.194 .8 19.2 36.8 33.6 .8

Learning Strategy Test Scores of English Students

The scale that was used to measure test of motivation (LSs) was reliable, with a Cronbach’s
alpha value of 0.7 (table 8). The means and standard deviations of students’ perception on learning
strategies test scores of English students are displayed in table 8.
The research findings reveals that the students achieved a mean of 3.8880 and SD = .49540 for
learning strategies/LSs-1. They achieved a mean of 3.9920 and SD = .64127 for LSs-2. The
students achieved a mean of 3.9520 and SD = .67029 for LSs-3. The students achieved a mean of
3.7680 and SD = .66157 for LSs-4. The students achieved a mean of 2.9040 and SD = .82720 for

153
LSs-5. They achieved a mean of 3.5360 and SD = .88485 for LSs-6. They achieved a mean of
3.6400 and SD = .74487 for LSs-7. The students achieved a mean of 3.8960 and SD = .82133 for
LSs-8. Therefore, means and SD for LSs-9 to LSs-36 are clearly stated on table 8. Finally, a normal
distribution can be observed for all scales in the present study as revealed by skewness and kurtosis
value as presented in table 8.

Table 8. Learning strategy test scores of English students (N= 125)

Code 1 2 3 4 5
M SD Skewness Kurtosis
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
LSs-1 3.8880 .49540 -.243 .872 0 0 18.4 74.4 7.2
LSs-2 3.9920 .64127 -.366 .660 0 1.6 16.0 64.0 18.4
LSs-3 3.9520 .67029 -.271 .168 0 1.6 20.0 60.0 18.4
LSs-4 3.7680 .66157 -.387 .392 0 3.2 26.4 60.8 9.6
LSs-5 2.9040 .82720 .182 -.216 2.4 29.6 45.6 20.0 2.4
LSs-6 3.5360 .88485 -.359 .025 1.6 9.6 34.4 42.4 12.0
LSs-7 3.6400 .74487 -.017 -.320 0 4.8 37.6 46.4 11.2
LSs-8 3.8960 .82133 -.958 1.253 .8 7.2 12.8 60.0 19.2
LSs-9 4.0720 .57046 -.254 1.194 0 .8 10.4 69.6 19.2
LSs-10 3.8320 .63164 .147 -.545 0 0 29.6 57.6 12.8
LSs-11 3.8720 .76175 -.336 -.117 0 4.0 24.0 52.8 19.2
LSs-12 4.1200 .81913 -.495 -.635 0 2.4 20.8 39.2 37.6
LSs-13 3.7280 .75537 -.642 .961 .8 4.8 26.4 56.8 11.2
LSs-14 3.9120 .72974 -.116 -.507 0 1.6 26.4 51.2 20.8
LSs-15 3.5840 .79498 -.183 -.356 0 8.8 34.4 46.4 10.4
LSs-16 3.0800 .83859 .264 -.292 .8 24.0 46.4 24.0 4.8
LSs-17 3.6400 .68862 -.443 .154 0 5.6 31.2 56.8 6.4
LSs-18 4.0640 .68089 -.235 -.292 0 .8 17.6 56.0 25.6
LSs-19 4.1200 .67918 -.309 -.222 0 .8 15.2 55.2 28.8
LSs-20 4.1760 .60992 -.110 -.417 0 0 11.2 60.0 28.8
LSs-21 4.1520 .56876 .012 -.064 0 0 9.6 65.6 24.8

154
 LSs-22 4.2080 .69903 -.310 -.919 0 0 16.0 47.2 36.8
LSs-23 3.9760 .72361 -.353 -.011 0 2.4 20.0 55.2 22.4
LSs-24 3.8240 .70784 .265 -.969 0 0 35.2 47.2 17.6
LSs-25 3.8560 .60514 -.370 .747 0 1.6 21.6 66.4 10.4
LSs-26 3.8480 .62290 -.292 .469 0 1.6 23.6 64.0 11.2
LSs-27 3.1840 .77651 -.438 .793 3.2 10.4 53.6 30.4 2.4
LSs-28 3.3600 .80723 .095 .-107 .8 12.0 44.0 36.8 6.4
LSs-29 2.7360 1.03288 .239 -.672 9.6 36.8 28.0 21.6 4.0
LSs-30 3.3040 .93519 .076 -.401 1.6 16.8 42.4 28.0 11.2
LSs-31 4.0240 .61518 -.225 .439 0 .8 15.2 64.8 19.2
LSs-32 3.6400 .80723 -.185 -.384 0 8.0 32.8 46.4 12.8
LSs-33 3.6720 .74893 .270 -.630 0 2.4 42.4 40.8 14.4
LSs-34 3.5840 .73159 .080 -.305 0 4.8 41.6 44.0 9.6
LSs-35 3.6000 .79312 .158 -.522 0 5.6 42.4 38.4 13.6
LSs-36 3.9520 .70546 -.212 -.224 0 1.6 22.4 55.2 20.8

There were approximately 81.6% of students revealed experiencing with the statement “I
think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English.”
Approximately 82.4% of students experienced to the statement “I use English words in a sentence
so I can remember those English words.” Approximately 78.4% of students experiencing to the
statement “I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help
remember the word.” Approximately 70.4% of students exhibited to the statement “I remember a
new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used. ”
There were 22.4% of students exhibited to the statement “I used flashcards to remember new
English words.” There were 54.4% of students experiencing with the statement “I remember new
English words or phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street
sign.” There were 57.6% of the students exhibited to the statement “I say or write new English
words several times.” There were 79.22% of the students revealed to the statement “I try to talk
like native English speakers.” There were 88.8% of the students experienced the statement I
practice the sounds of English.” Approximately 70.4% of the students stated that he or she uses
the English words he or she knows in different ways. 72% of the students revealed that he or she

155
starts a conversation in English. There were 76.8% of the students stated that he or she watches
English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies in English. There were
approximately 68% of the students revealed that to understand unfamiliar English words, he or she
makes guesses. There were 72% of the students said that when he or she cannot think of a word
during a conversation in English, he or she uses gestures. Approximately 56.8% of the students
revealed that he or she makes up new words if he or she does not know the right ones in English.
There were 28.8% of the students stated that he or she reads English without looking up every new
words. Approximately 63.2% of the students said that he or she tries to guess what the other person
will say next in English. There were 81.6% of the students revealed that if he or she can’t think of
an English word, he or she uses a word or phrase that means the same thing. Approximately 84%
of the students said that he or she tries to find as many ways as he or she can to use my English.
There were 88.8% of the students experienced that he or she notices his or her English mistakes
and uses that information to help him or her do better. Approximately 90.4% of the students stated
that he or she pays attention when someone is speaking English. There were 84% of the students
said that he or she tries to find out how to be a better learner of English. 77.6% of the students said
that he or she looks for people he or she can talk to in English. There were 64.8% of the students
revealed that he or she has clear goals for improving my English skills. There were 76.8% of the
students said that he or she tries to relax whenever he or she feels afraid of using English. There
were 75.2% of the students said that he or she encourages himself or herself to speak English even
when he or she is afraid of making a mistake. There were 32.8% of the students said that he or
she gives himself or herself a reward or treat when he or she does well in English. 43.2% of the
students experienced that he or she notices if he or she is tense or nervous when he or she is
studying or using English. Approximately 25.6% of the students said that he or she writes down
my feelings in a language learning diary. There were 39.2% of the students stated that he or she
talks to someone else about how he or she feels when he or she is learning English. Approximately
84% of the students stated that if he or she does not understand something in English, he or she
asks the other person to slow down or repeat. There were 59.2% of the students claimed that he or
she asks English speakers to correct him or her when he or she talks. There were 55.2% of the
students said that he or she practices English with other students in the classroom setting.
Approximately 53.6% of the students responded that he or she asks questions in English. There
were 52% of the students revealed that he or she asks for help from English speakers.

156
Approximately 76% of the students said that he or she tries to learn and understand about the
culture of native speakers of English.

Is there any correlation between self-efficacy belief and students’ academic performance in
English at higher education?

The Pearson correlation examines the correlation between self-efficacy belief and students’
academic performance. The results indicate that mean score and standard deviation (SD) of SEB
(M= 31.1200) out of possible maximum of 5 (strongly agree); SD= 2.86131 and GPA (M= 3.7077;
SD= .25453), a significant correlation (p= .000 ), the correlation coefficient is small with r= -.008,
and the size yield n=125. Therefore, the findings imply that there is a significant correlation
between self-efficacy belief and students’ academic performance among English students at
Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia.
This current study is consistently with some previous studies on self-efficacy belief which
reported that there was a significant relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance.
Zummerman, et al, 1992: 663) reported that students’ beliefs in their efficacy for self-regulated
learning affected their perceived self-efficacy for academic achievement, which in turn influenced
the academic goals they set for themselves and their final academic achievement. In keeping with
this report, Bandura, et al (1996: 1206) argued that perceived self-regulatory efficacy was related
to academic achievement both directly and through adherence to moral self-sanctions for
detrimental conduct and problem behavior that can subvert academic pursuits.

Table 9. Results of correlation between self-efficacy belief and students’ academic performance

Measures Mean SD r p
SEB 31.1200 2.86131
GPA 3.7077 .25453
SEB-GPA -.008 .000
Note. P <0.01

157
Is there any correlation between motivation and students’ academic performance in English in
higher education?

The Pearson correlation examines the correlation between motivation and students’
academic performance. The results reveal that mean score and standard deviation (SD) of Mot
(M= 56.8640) out of possible maximum of 5 (strongly agree); SD= 4.97631 and GPA (M= 3.7077;
SD= .25453), a significant correlation (p= .000 ), the correlation coefficient is small with r=
-.006, and the size yield n=125. Therefore, the findings imply that there is a significant correlation
between motivation and students’ academic performance among English students at Universitas
Negeri Makassar, Indonesia.
This current study is consistent with some previous studies on motivation which reported
that there was a significant relationship between motivation and academic performance. Pajares
(2003: 139) demonstrated that the students’ confidence in their writing capabilities influence their
writing motivation as well as various writing outcomes in school.

Table 9. Results of correlation between motivation and students’ academic performance

Measures Mean SD r p
Mot 56.8640 4.97631
GPA 3.7077 .25453
Mot-GPA -.006 .000
Note. P <0.01

Is there any correlation between learning strategies and students’ academic performance in
English in higher education?

The Pearson correlation examines the correlation between learning strategies and students’
academic performance. The results indicate that mean score and standard deviation (SD) of LSs
(M= 134.6960) out of possible maximum of 5 (strongly agree); SD= 11.22944 and GPA (M=
3.7077; SD= .25453), a significant correlation (p= .000), the correlation coefficient is small with
r= -.006, and the size yield n=125. Therefore, the findings imply that there is a significant

158
correlation between learning strategies and students’ academic performance among English
students at Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia.
This study is consistent with some previous studies on learning strategies which reported
that there was a significant relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance. Nasihah
and Cahyono (2017: 250) reported that pedagogically, when teaching writing, EFL teachers are
recommended to introduce potential of language learning strategies (LLSs) to students to boost
EFL students’ writing achievement.

Table 9. Results of correlation between learning strategies and students’ academic performance
Measures Mean SD r p
LSs 134.6960 11.22944
GPA 3.7077 .25453
LSs-GPA -.006 .000
Note. P <0.05

Conclusion
This study aimed at investigating the relationship of self-efficacy belief, motivation, and
learning strategies upon students’ academic performance in English at State University of
Makassar. The inferential and descriptive statistics show that self-efficacy belief, motivation, and
learning strategies partially correlate to students’ performance. The results revealed that 1) there
was a significant correlation of self-efficacy belief and students’ academic performance at State
University of Makassar (Universitas Negeri Makassar/UNM), with significant correlation (p= .000)
and the correlation coefficient is small with r= -.008, 2) there was a significant correlation of
motivation and students’ academic performance at State University of Makassar (Universitas
Negeri Makassar/UNM), with significant correlation (p= .000) and the correlation coefficient is
small with r= -.006, and 3) there was a significant correlation of learning strategies and students’
academic performance at State University of Makassar (Universitas Negeri Makassar/UNM), with
significant correlation (p= .000) and the correlation coefficient is small with r= -.006.
This present study therefore suggests some pedagogical implications. One such implication
is that self-efficacy belief, motivation, and learning strategies need to be introduced to language
learning in the classroom setting and the language learners need to have self-efficacy, motivation,

159
and good learning strategies if they want to succeed in language learning. Further studies in a
variety of settings and majors in self-efficacy belief, motivation, and learning strategies are
recommended.

160
References
Brown, Douglas H. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall, Inc.
Dӧrnyei, Zoltán & Ushioda, Ema. (2011). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited.
O,Malley, J. Michael & Chamot, Anna Uhl. (1995). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Journal Article
Bandura, Albert & Schunk, Dale H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 586-598.
Bandura, Albert & Carvone, Daniel. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms
governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 45, No. 5. Pp. 1017-1028.
Bandura, Albert. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), pp. 117-148.
Bandura, Albert., Barbaranelli, Caudio., Caprara, Gian Vittorio, & Pastorelli, Concetta. (1996).
Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child
Development, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 1206-1222.
Bandura, Albert., Pastorelli, Concetta., Barbaranelly, Claudio & Caprara, Gian Vittorio. (1999).
Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 258-269.
Bandura, Albert & Locke, Edwin A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 87-99.
Caprara, Gian Vittorio., Vecchione, Michele., Bove, Giannetta Del., Vecchio, Giovanni Maria.,
Barbaranelli, Caludio & Bandura, Albert. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of the role of
perceived self-efficacy for self-regulated learning in academic continuance and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 100, No. 3, pp. 523-534.
Cocca, Michaela., Cocca, Armando., Martinez, Elizabeth Alvarado & Bulnes, Maria
Guadalupe Rodriguez. Correlation between self-efficacy perception and teaching
performance: The case of Mexican preschool and primary school teachers. Arab World
English Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 56-70.
Ersanli, Ceylan Yangin. (2015). The relationship between students’ academic self-efficacy and

161
 language learning motivation: A study of 8th graders. Procedia, Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 199, pp. 472-478.
Harmer, Jeremy. (1991). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Longman
Publishing.
Isatayeva, Gulzhan; Smanov, Ileshan; Mutanova, Dinara; Aytbyeya, Nursaule; Saduova,
Zhanar & Beissembayeva, Saltanat. (2018). Structural relationship between the
motivation to study of the second language (De), stability and the second language
knowledge. XLinguae, Volume 11, Issue 3, June 2018, pp. 146-157.
LIbao, Nhorvien Jay P., Sagun, Jessie John B., Tamangan, Elvira A., Pattalitan, Jr, Agaton, P.
Pattalitan., Dupa, Maria Elena D., & Bautista, Romiro G. (2016). Science learning
motivation as correlate of students’ academic performance. Journal of Technology and
Science Education (JOTSE), 6(3), pp. 209-218.
Mali, Yustinus Calvin Gai. (2015). Students’ attributions on their English speaking
enhancement. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 174-183.
Nasihah, Mutiatun & Cahyono, Bambang Yudi. (2017). Language learning strategies,
motivation, and writing achievement of Indonesian EFL students. Arab World English
Journal, Volume 8, Number 1, Maret 2017, pp. 250-263.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with
implications for strategy training. System, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 235-247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Strategy inventory for language learning (SILL) Version 7.0 (ESL/EFL).
Accessed on 4 May 2018 from https://richarddpetty.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/sill-
english.pdf.
Oxford, R. L. & Burry-Stock, Judith A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning
strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language
learning (SILL). System, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships.
IRAL, 41, pp.2 271-278.
Pajares, Frank. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review
of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, pp. 139-158.
Piniel, Katalin & Csizér, Kata. (2013). L2 motivation, anxiety and self-efficacy: The
interrelationship of individual variables in the secondary school context. Studies in
Second Language Learning and Teaching (SSLLT), 3 (4), pp. 523 – 550.
Nunan, David & Lamb, Clarice. (1996). The self-directed teacher: Managing the learning
process. Merlbourne: Cambridge University Press.

162
Rubin, Joan. (1975). What the "Good Language Learner" Can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly,
Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 41-51.
Sherer, Mark & Maddux, James E. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation.
Psychological Reports, 51, pp. 663-671.
Schunk, Dale H. & Pajares, Frank. (1999). Self-efficacy theory. Handbook of motivation at
school, Edited by Wentzel, Kathryn R & Wigfield, Allan. New York: Routledge, Taylor
Francis Group.
Selivanova, Olga G, Gromova, Chulpan R. Chulpan R. & Mashkin, Nikolay A. (2018).
Improving student motivation for learning the second foreign language. XLinguae,
Volume 11 Issue 1, January 2018, pp. 218 – 229.
Tuan, Hsiao-Lin, Chin, Chi-Chin, & Shieh, Shyang-Horng. (2005). The development of a
questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning. International
Journal of Science Education, Vol. 27, No. 6, 16 May 2005, pp. 639-654.
Turner, Julianne C. & Meyer, Debra K. (1999). Understanding motivation in mathematics, what
is happening in classroom?. Handbook of motivation at school, Edited by Wentzel,
Kathryn R & Wigfield, Allan. New York: Routledge, Taylor Francis Group.
Weda, Sukardi & Sakti, Andi Elsa Fadhilah. (2018). The relationship between study anxiety
and academic performance among English students. XLinguae, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp.
718 – 727.
Wilson, Kathleen M. & Trainin, Guy. (2007). First-grade students’ motivation and achievement
for reading, writing, and spelling. Reading Psychology, 28, pp. 257-282.
Yulia, Yuyun. (2013). Teaching challenges in Indonesia: Motivating students and teachers’
classroom language. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Zimmermen, Barry J, Bandura, Albert & Martinez-Pons, Manuel. (1992). Self-motivation for
academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting.
American Educational Research Journal, Volume 29, No. 3, pp. 663-676.
Zimmerman, Barry J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, pp. 82-91.

Theses
Weda, Sukardi. (2005). English learning strategies employed by senior secondary school
students. Unpublished theses, Graduate Program, Universitas Hasanuddin.

163
 Appendix

Respondent Identity:
Name :
Sex :
Age :
Study Program:
Semester :
GPA :
Questionnaire

Choose one of the following choices which reveal how much you agree or disagree by circling
around. Remember that there are no right or wrong answers.

(1) Strongly disagree

(2) Disagree
(3) Neither agree nor disagree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree

No. Self-Efficacy Belief Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

disagree agree nor agree
disagree

1. Whether the English learning 1 2 3 4 5

topics is difficult or easy, I am
sure that I can understand it.
2. I am not confident about 1 2 3 4 5
understanding difficult
English learning topics. (-)
3. I am sure that I can do well on 1 2 3 4 5
English tests.
4. No matter how much effort I 1 2 3 4 5
put in, I cannot learn English
well. (-)
5. When activities in English 1 2 3 4 5
subject are too difficult, I give
up or only do the easy parts.
(-)
6. During activities in the 1 2 3 4 5
English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) classroom, I
prefer to ask my friends for
the answers rather than
thinking of myself. (-)
7. When I find the contents or 1 2 3 4 5
the topics in English difficult,
I do not try to learn it. (-)

164
 8. I encourage myself to succeed 1 2 3 4 5
in English.
9. I behave to try to learn all 1 2 3 4 5
difficult topics or materials in
English.
10. I am convinced that I can 1 2 3 4 5
maintain communication well
in English with my friends
and lecturers.
Adapted from Tuan, Chin, & Shieh (2005)

No. Motivation Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

disagree agree nor agree
disagree
1. I want to learn all topics in 1 2 3 4 5
English I need to learn.
2. I have high expectation of 1 2 3 4 5
myself to succeed in English.
3. I feel good when I complete 1 2 3 4 5
difficult tasks in EFL
classroom.
4. I work best in group 1 2 3 4 5
discussion.
5. I learn English for my future 1 2 3 4 5
careers.
6. No matter how much I like or 1 2 3 4 5
dislike a lecturer, I still try to
learn from him. (-)
7. No matter how much I like or 1 2 3 4 5
dislike a topic, I still try to
learn from it. (-)
8. I feel that I should be 1 2 3 4 5
recognized by my friends
when demonstrating abilities
in front of the EFL classroom.
9. I feel more accepted by my 1 2 3 4 5
friends and a lecturer when
obtaining excellent score on a
test or drill.
10. I completed my task and 1 2 3 4 5
homework assignment
because my teacher frequently
gives reinforcement (rewards).
11. I feel ashamed when obtaining 1 2 3 4 5
low score in a test or drill.
12. I get nervous when my 1 2 3 4 5
lecturer asks questions to me.
(-)

165
 13. I try to do the best in the 1 2 3 4 5
classroom.
14. I often feel nervous when I 1 2 3 4 5
take a quiz, mid-term test, and
final-term test.
15. Even when I have studied for 1 2 3 4 5
hours, I feel that I have no
enough preparation for a test
or a quiz.
Adapted from Brown (2007) and Shia (1998) in Nasihah and Cahyono (2017).

No. Learning Strategy Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

disagree agree nor agree
disagree
Part A (Memory Strategy)
1. I think of relationships 1 2 3 4 5
between what I already know
and new things I learn in
English
2. I use English words in a 1 2 3 4 5
sentence so I can remember
those English words.
3. I connect the sound of a new 1 2 3 4 5
English word and an image or
picture of the word to help
remember the word.
4. I remember a new English 1 2 3 4 5
word by making a mental
picture of a situation in which
the word might be used.
5. I used flashcards to remember 1 2 3 4 5
new English words.
6. I remember new English 1 2 3 4 5
words or phrases by
remembering their location on
the page, on the board, or on a
street sign.
Part B (Cognitive Strategy)
7. I say or write new English 1 2 3 4 5
words several times.
8. I try to talk like native English 1 2 3 4 5
speakers.
9. I practice the sounds of 1 2 3 4 5
English.
10. I use the English words I 1 2 3 4 5
know in different ways.
11. I start conversation in English. 1 2 3 4 5

166
12. I watch English language TV 1 2 3 4 5
shows spoken in English or go
to movies in English.
Part C (Compensatory
Strategy)
13. To understand unfamiliar 1 2 3 4 5
English words, I make
guesses.
14. When I can’t think of a word 1 2 3 4 5
during a conversation in
English, I use gestures.
15. I make up new words if I do 1 2 3 4 5
not know the right ones in
English.
16. I read English without looking 1 2 3 4 5
up every new words.
17. I try to guess what the other 1 2 3 4 5
person will say next in
English.
18. If I can’t think of an English 1 2 3 4 5
word, I use a word or phrase
that means the same thing.
Part D (Metacognitive
Strategy)
19. I try to find as many ways as I 1 2 3 4 5
can to use my English.
20. I notice my English mistakes 1 2 3 4 5
and use that information to
help me do better.
21. I pay attention when someone 1 2 3 4 5
is speaking English.
22. I try to find out how to be a 1 2 3 4 5
better learner of English.
23. I look for people I can talk to 1 2 3 4 5
in English.
24. I have clear goals for 1 2 3 4 5
improving my English skills.
Part E (Affective Strategy)
25. I try to relax whenever I feel 1 2 3 4 5
afraid of using English.
26. I encourage myself to speak 1 2 3 4 5
English even when I am afraid
of making a mistake.
27. I give myself a reward or treat 1 2 3 4 5
when I do well in English.
28. I notice if I am tense or 1 2 3 4 5
nervous when I am studying
or using English.
29. I write down my feelings in a 1 2 3 4 5

167
 language learning diary.
30. I talk to someone else about 1 2 3 4 5
how I feel when I am learning
English.
Part F (Social Strategy)
31. If I do not understand 1 2 3 4 5
something in English, I ask
the other person to slow down
or say it again.
32. I ask English speakers to 1 2 3 4 5
correct me when I talk.
33. I practice English with other 1 2 3 4 5
students in the classroom
setting.
34. I ask questions in English. 1 2 3 4 5
35. I ask for help from English 1 2 3 4 5
speakers.
36. I try to learn and understand 1 2 3 4 5
about the culture of native
speakers of English.
Adapted from Oxford, R. (1990).

168
 Ideal university culture of ESP undergraduate students in Hong Kong

Joseph W. C. Lau
Vocational Training Council – Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education

Bioprofile:
Joseph W.C. Lau has received formal training in the disciplines of management, linguistics
and educational psychology. He currently teaches vocational language at the Institute of
Vocational Education of the Vocational Training Council, Hong Kong. His research interests
include higher education management, strategic management, social identities, psychoanalytic
theories, and student learning motivation. He can be reached at josephlau.star@gmail.com

Abstract
This research topic is a qualitative phenomenological study adopting an interpretivist-
constructionist paradigm. It explores what ESP (English for specific purposes) undergraduate
students consider as an ideal university culture (IUC), and how such perception affects their
SoB. Seven recent graduates of various ESP degree programmes were interviewed; the data
collected were transcribed and thematically analysed. The results indicate that the majority of
participants believed that degree of freedom perceived (Freedom-based) was the essence of
IUC, although there was also the view that an ideal culture was based on the kind of people it
contained (People-based). Most participants claimed that their institutions had matched their
expectations of IUC; they were also certain that because of the matching IUC, their SoB was
stronger. Finally, it was observable that when students’ ESP was stronger, their learning
motivation would be positively affected. Through the medium of ‘student voices’ (Batchelor,
2008), the study recommends a more thorough examination of the needs of ESP students in
terms of defining a more unique educational culture.

Keywords: Social identity theory, social categorization, student identity, university culture,
sense of belonging, learning motivation

IVE (Sha Tin)

21 Yuen Wo Road
Sha Tin, New Territories 169
Introduction
Social identity in terms of social categorisation is the grouping of diverse social circles based
on the members' stereotypical attributes, culture, personal background, and behaviour (Tajfel
& Turner, 1985). Studies exploring the phenomena of social identity in higher education
suggest that students’ sense of belonging (SoB) to a university community is associated with
the groups the student identifies with. The current research topic examines the phenomenon
of ideal university culture (IUC) of ESP students in the Hong Kong higher education setting.
It investigates whether a relationship among IUC, sense of belonging (SoB) and student
learning motivation exists for ESP students in Hong Kong. The research is qualitative in design
steered by the interpretivist-constructionist paradigm. The semi-structured interview
constitutes the data collection method as the essence of the phenomenological inquiry. The
research questions that guide this research study are:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What is the ideal university culture (IUC) for ESP undergraduate
students in Hong Kong?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What is the relationship between IUC and SoB for ESP
undergraduate students in Hong Kong?

Research Question 3 (RQ3): Whether SOB has an impact on student learning motivation of
ESP undergraduate students in Hong Kong?

Literature review
The social identity approach, comprising social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and
self-categorisation theory (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971; Turner 1985; Turner et al.,
1987), has very much influenced the understanding of multiple group-mediated phenomena
since its emergence in the early 1970s. According to social identity theory, an individual’s
social identity has the fundamental and adaptive function of fabricating social behaviour
(Turner, 1984); the social identity approach suggests that human interaction ranges on a broad
spectrum of ‘interpersonal’ to the ‘intergroup’. A purely interpersonal interaction, considered
rare, involves people relating entirely on an individual basis, with no awareness or influence
of social categories. Conversely, when a person’s idiosyncratic qualities are group membership,
a purely intergroup interaction happens whereby the person relates entirely as a member of his

170
or her group. A more in-depth observation of group membership and the way individuals
perceive such classification of groups leads to the discourse of social categorisation theory.
According to the theory, ‘social categorisation’ is the grouping of diverse social circles based
on the members' stereotypical attributes, culture, personal background, and behaviour (Tajfel
& Turner, 1985). That is to say, individuals have the tendency to classify people (including
themselves) into various social categories. Social categories are defined by prototypical
characteristics such as organisational membership, social affiliation, gender, age cohort,
education, values, and attitudes abstracted from members in any given group (Turner, 1985).
‘Social identity’ is stemmed from social groups, to which an individual perceives a sense of
belonging, along with its value and emotional significance (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
To Hogg and Terry (2000), one’s psychological sense of belonging is captured by the groups
one identifies with. Therefore, the influence of social groups to individual’s sense of belonging
cannot be underestimated.
Concerning student social identity in the higher education setting, the formation of the student
social identity occurs when, in a given sociocultural and educational context, a particular
students react on a level beyond their personal identities. The individual student transforms
from being an individual into being a member of the student group, among other memberships
available in the sociocultural and educational contexts, thereby enabling the individual student
to perceive, associate, and internalise any necessary ingredients in the construction and
substantiation of their social identities. The student’s emotional engagement to such a
membership of the student group subsequently formulates the prescribed emotional
components associated to the student group. The individual student would then continue to
identify and reinforce their interests with the anticipated group membership. That is, the
sociocultural and educational context embeds a group culture consistent with the ontological
characteristics of the student as an individual. In this light, the individual’s cultural expectation
conflates with the socio-educational context, reinforcing the student’s social identity.
Studies exploring social identity in higher education suggest that students’ social identity,
thereby, student’s sense of belonging (SoB) to a university community, is clearly associated
with their sense of psychological well-being. This was reflected in psychometric constructs
such as self-esteem, life satisfaction and depression (Cameron, 1999). Not only was SoB
considered an important feature of student social identity with respect to student group
membership, but a major factor affecting students’ adjustment, coping strategies and adaptation
(Sevinc & Gizir, 2014). While extant research studies (for example, Johnson et al., 2007; Kahu,
2013; Read, Archer, & Leathwood, 2003) have further explored the strong relationship existed

171
between SoB and the sociocultural and educational context students are being exposed to, Lau
(2016) discovers that SoB is specifically influenced by whether such sociocultural and
educational context is “ideal”, i.e., ideal university culture (IUC) for students in higher
education.
In terms of social identity and motivation, individuals would be motivated by how their group
behaviour would be directed in a consistent fashion with the distinctiveness identified. For
example, Oyserman, Fryberg, and Yoder (2007) state that people behave in an identity-infused
fashion; that is, people engage in behaviour that carries a positive tone of inclusion for the in-
group they belong to. Groups not only are instrumental to executing organisational functions
and processes, but enable and constrain motivations and commitments of members (Korte,
2007). Concerning SoB and its impact on student motivation, SoB is likely to have an impact
on student learning motivation, consistent with multiple studies (see Alderman, 2013;
Goodenow & Grady, 1993; Lau, 2016; Osterman, 2000) recognising the importance of
psychological membership and SoB for motivation and cognitive enhancement. Looking at
the learning motivation of ESP (English for specific purposes) undergraduate students, it is
comprehended as a complex, multiple, and conflicting concept (Liu et al., 2011), presumably
due to the existing gap between the students’ perceptions of needs and the academic courses
they took in reality. While such ideological gap may pose challenges to ESP students for their
learning, it is believed that they are able to overcome these and other problems through a
combination of strong motivation, hard work, effective learning strategies and supportive peer
networks (Evans & Morriso, 2011). With respect to the salient influences of motivation and
peer networks, since IUC and SoB are crucial factors affecting student learning motivation.

Methodology
Data collection
Students’ perception for an ideal university culture is a feeling that cannot be easily directly
observed or recorded. The semi-structured interviews were selected, therefore, as the data
collection method for the present study because it is considered the best way to “find out what
is on people’s mind—what they think or how they feel about something” (Fraenkel and Wallen,
2006, p.455). It is most effective to research about students’ experience of their universities by
asking them to directly explain their feelings in their own words (Seidman, 2006). Regarding
face-to-face interviews, they are effective in handling apparent contradictions found among
responses of the same participant or among responses of different participants in a group
interview. ‘Unusual’ responses can be probed for explanations and elaborations to uncover

172
valuable points. Also, in a face-to-face interview, participants’ body movements and facial
expressions can also be observed, and this can supplement a richer meaning to the interview.
Although there would have been clear benefits, this study did not provide preparation time for
participants because: (1) the semi-structured interview was designed to solicit authentic
answers, which prior preparation would negatively affect; and (2) natural anxiety during the
interview could be a good device to collect true information (instead of formulaic responses)
needed for the research questions. While all participants were non-native English speakers,
English was used as the medium of communication as previously agreed upon.
Since the semi-structured interviews were utilised, interviewees were encouraged to elaborate
their points if needed. Jumping back and forth among items with interviewees was quite
common, as it helped to clarify problems or any arising matters. As Cohen, Manion and
Morrison (2000) suggest, interviews are usually carried out in a fashion “where a schedule is
prepared but it is sufficiently open-ended to enable the contents to be re-ordered, digressions
and expansions made, new avenues to be included, and further probing to be undertaken”
(p.146). At the end of each interview, interviewees were invited to supplement any further
points if necessary.
As shown in Table 1, seven recent graduates of local universities in Hong Kong had been
selected for this study with the requisite experiences of their undergraduate studies. ‘Recent
graduates’ being defined as individuals who have graduated not more than two years before
this study. This criterion was comparable to Jusoh, Simun, and Chong’s (2011) study of the
organisational commitment of fresh graduates. To protect the privacy of the interviewees, all
names shown in this study are pseudonyms.

Table 1. Participant profiles

173
Data analysis
For the current study, all interview data associated with students’ perception were analysed by
means of qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis is effective in discovering patterns, coherent
themes, and meaningful categories. It uncovers new ideas and improves understanding of a
phenomenon or process. The depth unfolded by qualitative analysis is believed by many to be
the best method for understanding the complexity of education problems (Suter, 2006).
Batchelor’s (2008) theory offers a philosophical analysis of the meaning of student identity
against an educational climate dominated by market and managerial discourses (Barnett & Di
Napoli, 2008). The voice of student identity in the academic world coincides with Belk’s (1988)
argument of possession reflecting identity. Against Batchelor’s (2008) theory of student voice,
this study postulates that the third voice, the ontological voice of being and becoming, is the
most delicate and vulnerable. It is the most relevant and important voice in identity formation,
particularly when individualised student voice transcends into a collective voice interacting
with and combining each of their individual voices (Batchelor, 2014). Since the theory of
student voice pertains to students’ unique consciousness and experiences and regards the social
actors (students) as integral to the understanding of organisational dynamics (higher education
institutions), it elucidates the heterogeneous nature of the student identity.
With active participation from students whose unique ‘voices’ are decoded in this study, student
identity is a manifestation of psychological and sociocultural influences. Data collected were
transcribed and thematically analysed; to facilitate the management of data and meticulous data
analysis, the computer software Nvivo was utilised. In specific, the key stages of coding and
thematic analysis were digitised and computerised, enabling important queries to be made in a
more organised, systematic and effective fashion. In this light, this study will be replicable as
all the analytical procedures digitally completed can be tracked and traced. However, it is
worth to note that Nvivo is neither capable of interpreting data nor answering research
questions. Therefore, the researcher had to decide which features and functions of the software
were to be utilised for effective management of qualitative data. Hence, with the right tool
chosen in a controlled and safe fashion, the raw data collected were efficiently handled and
subsequently yielded a research procedure which complied with the quality criteria relevant to
the qualitative approach such as those of Guba’s (1981) and Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) quality:
Credibility, Transferability, Dependability.

174
Findings
Participants shared diverse thoughts about what constituted an ideal university culture (IUC
hereafter). The key words (“nodes” as used in Nvivo) freedom and people were encountered so
many times in interviews that two distinct striking patterns, or themes, of IUC emerged. For
Freedom-based IUC, the essence was the existence of ‘freedom’, i.e., whether or it is ideal
depends on the degree of freedom perceived. For People-based IUC, an ideal culture that is
based on the kind of people it contains, i.e., whether or it is ideal depends on the social
atmosphere perceived.

Ideal university culture

In terms of Freedom-based IUC, some students thought that academic freedom was the essence
of an ideal culture. As Bonnie (P1) expressed, “I expected it to be… no one can interfere any
of the academic stuff like research, no one can interfere them. If you want to do a research in
some areas, some sensitive areas, no one can try to push you away”. Emily (P8) supposed that
an ideal culture would allow student to choose what they wanted to study. As Emily (P8)
articulated, “students should have their own choice. Like they can choose what to study and
what to participate in. Yeah. Uh provided that students would really like to learn like they have
the motivation to learn”. For Jennifer (P16), the sense of freedom boiled down to a relatively
personal level. As Jennifer (P16) testified, “I like the idea of going to college and university in
my mind is getting drunk, going to parties, meeting new people”. While freedom was very
important for Donna (P5), such freedom was closely connected with people. As she described,
“Yeah liberal…interaction for me is like really important like it means a lot to me cause I…I
really cherish like interacting with people.” This illustrates that there are students who prefer
a combination of both types of IUC, bridging the gap between Freedom-based IUC and People-
based IUC.
In contrast, some students thought that what made the school ideal was the diversity of the
school community, i.e., People-based IUC. For instance, Clarice (P4) insisted that students
should “get more chances to be exposed to a lot of things…it (the university) got a very
international community. So um, it’s um… I mean it’s like you need to um be sociable with a
lot of other people”. On the other hand, Gina (P11) believed that having a chance to build
closer relationships with teachers and classmates, along with caring, contributed a lot toward
an ideal culture. Gina said, “I really enjoy this close relationship, and then uh academically
the teachers, the lecturers they they really help us…they really care about us. They really want
to give what they have to us. Not just uh not just for now. But for the future. They keep helping

175
us even after we graduated and then they sometimes they text us hey how you’re doing”. This
implies that students’ expectation towards teacher quality extends beyond classroom settings
but into students’ life after graduation. Finally, building friendships with fellow classmates
was clearly an important feature for Sabrina (P17). As she elaborated, “I think because
university… um… students come over come for from all over the world so (clearing throat)
they should be able to… uh I don’t know get along together and (clearing throat) just have a
chance to um yeah, just casually hang out.”
The preference for freedom-based IUC can be attributed to the previous discussion where
learners’ autonomy and a customised educational experience had a steering effect on learning
in higher education. While participants seemingly had no difficulties in narrating what
constitutes a free academic culture, it has drawn the attention of many scholars: Owusu-Ansah
(2015) reckons that it is rarely understood and yet should be embraced for the growth of
knowledge and its dissemination. Dykstra, Moen, and Davies (2011) investigate whether there
is agreement between faculty and students as to whether academic freedom exists. McCrae
(2011) argues that higher education learning environments are stifled by ideological rectitude,
and that a reinvigoration of academic freedom is required.
On the contrary, the preference for People-based IUC is connected to the previous findings on
the steering and facilitation of learning where ‘people’ played an important role, among other
factors identified. In this connection, Kacire (2015) recommends that universities develop
sustainable policies preventing alienation, which can be viewed as a state of estrangement, as
either the individual from their needs or from the people both in and out of the individual’s
domain. Also, there is evidence that knowledge of human cultures is recognised by higher
education institutions as an essential learning outcome (Tinsley et al., 2010).

Sense of belonging
Regarding the relationship between IUC and sense of belonging (SoB) for ESP students in
Hong Kong, following their accounts on IUC, student participants reflected on whether their
own institutions matched their IUC definitions. If they did, they further elaborated on whether
or not their SoB would have been affected (stronger or no effect) with respect to the matching
of culture. During the first level of enquiry, most participants claimed that their institutions
matched their expectations of IUC. The second level of enquiry probed deeper into the
dynamics of SoB, investigating whether matching IUC had anything to do with SoB. Of all
the cases which claimed that their institutions matched their expectations of IUC, all
participants except one were certain that their SoB was stronger, which was highly consistent

176
with the prediction of the conceptual model of Lau (2016), associating matching culture with
SoB. The only exceptional case (P8) explained that “it’s hard to have a sense of belonging
because we spend less time in our school (than secondary school).” This reflected on a study
conducted by Crisp et al (2009), finding that first year university students frequently expected
that university life would be different to high school. Presumably, time spent on campus was
a predominant factor for P8; individuals would have less mandatory time in university
compared with secondary school, and therefore for a student group such as that represented by
P8, factors such as matching IUC may not play an influential role in the enhancement of SoB.

Student learning motivation

Finally, there is a strong indication that students’ learning motivation was positively affected
because of enhanced SoB. These findings suggest that SoB is an essential element of in-group
distinctiveness pertaining to students’ social identity, and it is closely associated with an ideal
university culture. In the current study, a majority of students were inclined to accept the
phenomenon that because their SoB was stronger, their learning motivation was simutaneosly
enhanced. This is consistent with multiple studies (see Alderman, 2013; Goodenow & Grady,
1993; Osterman, 2000) recognising the importance of psychological membership and SoB for
motivation and cognitive enhancement. Meanwhile, a number of scholars such as Oyserman
and Destin (2010), Oyserman, Fryberg, and Yoder (2007), Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci (2006),
Goodenow (1992) have as well speculated that a relationship between social identity and
learning motivation exist. Inasmuch as the individual’s cultural expectation conflates with the
socio-educational context, it reinforces the student’s social identity, which is consistent to
Lau’s (2016) study on student social identity and its impact on student learning motivation.
Finally, it is worth noticing that whether the student’s environment is significantly meaningful
should assimilate a range of salient factors such as work motivation, collaborative learning or
learning sentiment. Further research projects could, therefore, take a closer examination on
whether these factors assume any moderating/mediating role in affecting student learning
motivation.

Conclusions
The present study has provided thematic analyses of the qualitative data gathered to explore
students’ perceptions on university culture, sense of belonging, and learning motivation. In
summary, the study has identified two distinct themes of IUC emerged, namely Freedom-
based IUC and People-based IUC. It has also been recorded that most ESP participants

177
claimed that their institutions had matched their expectations of IUC. A majority of ESP
participants were also certain that because of the matching IUC, their SoB had been stronger.
Finally, it has been observable that when ESP students’ SoB was stronger, their learning
motivation would have been positively affected.
These findings shed light on the significance of in-group distinctiveness and its effect on
student learning behaviour. It amplifies the notion that learning motivation is made stronger
when ESP students identify his or her interests with the sociocultural and educational context
of the anticipated group membership. That is to say, the sociocultural and educational context
embeds a group culture consistent with the ontological characteristics of the ESP student. It is
interesting to note that some students may attribute their stronger SoB directly to their academic
departments (Lau, 2016). In other words, the students’ departments boosted their SoB more
than their institutions. Therefore, a department matching IUC would mean a more enhanced
in-group distinctiveness where individual students were exposed to a culture in a more intense
and coherent fashion. The impact of matching culture would thus become more intense and
significant in enhancing the student’s SoB.

Discussion
The current study has offered an alternative, if not unconventional, implication to demonstrate
that student identity is a heterogeneous notion subject to a wide spectrum of definitions. Such
heterogeneous nature of student identity indicates that there is a wide spectrum of students’
perception and expectation, manifested not only in ideal university culture but multiple aspects
pertinent to student social identity. Under the current trend of the commercialisation of higher
education, it is a moot question to be asking whether a prototype of ‘student-customer’ with
universal, standardised characteristics, needs and expectations could ever exist. With active
participation from students whose unique ‘voices’ are decoded in this study, student identity is
a topic subject to both psychological and sociocultural influences. It would be advisable to
cater to ‘students’ voices’, which incorporate the students’ own perspective of the customer’s
identity.
While researchers have relentlessly offered their perspectives on how student identity should
be defined in higher education, it has become reduced to a state of ambivalence, where
expectations of educators and students could only be broadly generalised and polarised. It is
salient to ensure the students’ learning experience is a positive one, by cultivating a positive
teaching and learning environment. With renewed awareness of critical issues in student
identity and student learning motivation, a more effective strategic implementation of

178
managerial initiatives for higher education would be advisable. These managerial initiatives
are not only confined to financial concerns or competitive edge, but educational policy, quality
assurance, and academic development, which ultimately converge on the overall improvement
of teaching and learning.
The definition of the student identity, narrated through the vulnerable ‘voices’ of the survey
participants, is conceivably equivocal in nature. Fundamentally, higher education management
ought to revolutionise the way strategies of improving the educational culture are standardised,
acknowledging that the needs and expectations of students that cannot be simplistically
standardised with a homogenous identity.

References
Alderman, M. K. (2013). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Barnett, R., & Di Napoli, R. (2008). Identity and voice in higher education: Making
connections. In Barnett, R., & Napoli, R. D. (Eds.). Changing identities in higher
education: Voicing perspectives (pp. 197-201). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Batchelor, D. (2008). Have students got a voice. In Barnett, R., & Napoli, R. D. (Eds.).
Changing identities in higher education: Voicing perspectives (pp. 40-54). Abingdon,
UK: Routledge.
Batchelor, D. (2014). Finding a voice as a student. In Gibbs, P., & Barnett, R. (Eds.). Thinking
about higher education (pp. 157-173). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing.
Belk, W. R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. The Journal of Consumer Research,
15(2), 139-168.
Cameron, J. (1999). Social identity and the pursuit of possible selves: Implications for the
psychological well-being of university students. Group Dynamics, 3, 179–189.
Cohen, L.; Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education, 5th ed., London:
Routledge Falmer.
Crisp, G., Palmer, E., Turnbull, D., Nettelbeck, T., Ward, L., LeCouteur, A., & Schneider, L.
(2009). First year student expectations: Results from a university-wide student survey.
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 6(1), 11-26.
Dykstra, D. V., Moen, D., & Davies, T. (2011). Comparing student and faculty-perceptions
related to academic freedom protection. Research in Higher Education Journal, 14
(Dec 2011), 1.

179
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 161-186.
Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011). Meeting the challenges of English-medium higher education:
The first-year experience in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 198-
208.
Fraenkel, J. & Wallen, N. (2006) How to design and evaluate research in education, 6th ed.,
New York: McGraw Hill.
Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and the study
of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 177–196.
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends' values
to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 62(1), 60-71.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ,
29(2), 75-91.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140.
Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T.,
& Longerbeam, S. D. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year
undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student
Development, 48(5), 525-542.
Jusoh, M., Simun, M., & Chong, S. (2011). Expectation gaps, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment of fresh graduates: Roles of graduates, higher learning
institutions and employers. Education+ Training, 53(6), 515-530.
Kacire, I. (2015). The impact of the university students’ level of alienation on their perception
of general satisfaction. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(1), 38.
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in higher
education, 38(5), 758-773.
Korte, R. F. (2007). A review of social identity theory with implications for training and
development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(3), 166-180.
Lau, W. (2016). Commercialising higher education: the impact of student-customer social
identity on student learning motivation. NOVA. The University of Newcastle's Digital
Repository.
Lincoln, Y. S, & Guba, E. A. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

180
Liu, J. Y., Chang, Y. J., Yang, F. Y., & Sun, Y. C. (2011). Is what I need what I want?
Reconceptualising college students’ needs in English courses for general and
specific/academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 271-
280.McCrae, N. (2011). Nurturing critical thinking and academic freedom in the 21st
century university. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, 23(1), 128-134.
Owusu-Ansah, C. (2015). Academic freedom: Its relevance and challenges for public
universities in Ghana today. In Ideas, 6(5), 173-179.
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students' need for belonging in the school community. Review of
educational research, 70(3), 323-367.
Oyserman, D., & Destin, M. (2010). Identity-based motivation: Implications for intervention.
The Counseling Psychologist, 38(7), 1001-1043.
Oyserman, D., Fryberg, S. A., & Yoder, N. (2007). Identity-based motivation and health.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1011.
Poon, T. & Lau, J. (2017) “Revisiting students’ perception of effective part-time lecturers: The
impact of students’ background”. Public Administration and Policy, 20(1), Spring, 60-
78.
Poon, T. & Lau, J. (2016) “Good Experience? The Impact of Students’ Background on Students’
Perceptions of an effective Part-time Lecturer”. Conference paper presented at the
Conference on Enhancing Student Learning Experience. 2016. FSTE – HKCAAVQ,
Hong Kong, 17 November.
Poon, T. & Lau, J. (2014) “Students’ Perception of Effective Part-time Lecturers”. Public
Administration and Policy, 17(2), Fall, 56-73.
Read, B., Archer, L., & Leathwood, C. (2003). Challenging cultures? Student conceptions
of'belonging'and'isolation'at a post-1992 university. Studies in higher education, 28(3),
261-277.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and
intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149-178.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In W.G. Austin
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

181
 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24).
Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tinsley, P., Shockley, M., Whang, P., Thao, P., Rosenberg, B., & Simmons, B. (2010).
Assessment culture: From ideal to real-a process of tinkering. Peer Review, 12(1), 23.
Turner, J.C. (1984). Social identification and psychological group formation In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
The social dimension (Vol. 2, pp. 518–538). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Turner, J. C. (1985) Social categorization and the selfconcept: A social cognitive theory of
group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77-
122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M.S. (1987). Rediscovering
the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Seidman, I. (2006) Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sevinc, S., & Gizir, C. A. (2014). Factors negatively affecting university adjustment from the
views of first-year university students: The case of Mersin University. Educational
Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(4), 1301-1308.
Suter, W. (2006) Introduction to Educational Research: A Critical Thinking Approach.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in
self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation.
Educational psychologist, 41(1), 19-31.

182

View publication stats